Karnataka High Court
R. Rahamathullah vs State By on 27 November, 2023
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42774-DB
CRL.A No. 1363 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1363 OF 2023 (NIA)
BETWEEN:
1. R. RAHAMATHULLAH
MALE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O RIZVAULLA
R/O ANGAPPAN STREET
MANNADY
Digitally signed by D CHENNAI-600000
HEMA
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
2. JAMAL MOHAMMED USHMANI
S/O SHAUL HAMEED
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
160 PALLI VASAL STREET
NORTH STREET, PATHAMBADAI
TIRUNELVELI-627423
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A. VELAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
VIDHANA SOUDHA PS
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42774-DB
CRL.A No. 1363 of 2023
This Criminal appeal filed under Section 21 of National
Investigation Agency Act, praying to allow the present
application for instructing the investigating agency to provide
with a copy of the translated police report in a language known
to the appellant i.e., Tamil vide order dated 03.07.2023 passed
in Spl.C.No.794/2023 passed by the XLIX Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (Spl.Court for Trial of NIA
cases, Bengaluru).
This Criminal appeal, coming on for Orders, through
physical hearing/video conferencing, this day,
Dr. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant regarding maintainability.
2. The registry has raised an office objection
observing that the present appeal is not maintainable
under Section 21(1) of National Investigating Agency Act,
2008 (for brevity 'NIA Act').
NC: 2023:KHC:42774-DB
3. Learned Registrar (Judicial) in support of the
office objection has submitted that, according to the view
of the registry, the impugned order is not a final order nor
even it is a judgment in a pending case, as such, in view
of Section 21 of NIA Act, the appeal is not maintainable.
4. Heard the submission of learned counsel for the
appellant, who vehemently submitted that appeal is
maintainable.
5. He attempted to draw an analogy between an
order rejecting the bail under NIA Act to the impugned
order on hand and also submitted that the Section begins
with the opening words "Notwithstanding anything
contained" and also it says that, the appeal shall lie from
any judgment, sentence or order. Thus, the impugned
order, is appealable under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act.
6. In the instance case, the appellant being
aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2023, passed by the
NC: 2023:KHC:42774-DB
Special Court rejecting his interlocutory application filed
under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. seeking to furnish the copies
of the police report and its enclosures in Tamil language,
has preferred this appeal.
Section 21(1) of NIA, Act, reads as below:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the code
an appeal shall i.e., from any judgment,
sentence or order, not being an interlocutory
order, of a Special Court to the High Court both
on facts and on law."
7. A reading of the Section goes to show that, the
appeal under Section 21(1) would lie from any judgment,
sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a
Special Court.
8. In the instance case, the word 'order' is
required to be read in conjunction with the subsequent
words following the same, which is, "not being an
interlocutory order". Admittedly, the impugned order is
NC: 2023:KHC:42774-DB
passed upon an interlocutory application. Though, the
learned counsel for the appellant contends that the said
order on an interlocutory application is a final order,
merely because an order is passed upon the interlocutory
application would be a final order confining to the said
application by the Court disposing of the said
interlocutory application, by that itself, it cannot be kept
out of the ambit of an order, which is interlocutory in
nature. The order in question stands on a separate footing
from any interim order and an intermediate order, as
such, it is an interlocutory order only.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mohammed Hussain reported in
(2014) 1 SCC 258 has held with respect to NIA Act that,
interlocutory orders from Special Court other than the
orders passed on bail application are not
appealable".
NC: 2023:KHC:42774-DB
10. For the above reasons, the office objection
sustains.
The Criminal appeal stands returned as not
maintainable.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AG
