Karnataka High Court
Mahammad Shiyab S vs National Investigation Agency on 31 May, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:18664
WP No. 2686 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 2686 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MAHAMMAD SHIYAB S
S/O MOHAMMAD SAJID
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.1-30, SHETTIYADKA HOUSE
GANDHINAGAR, NAVOOR VILLAGE
SULLIA TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574314
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (GOI)
HYDRABADE BRANCH
REP. BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL
SRI PRASANNA KUMAR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:18664
WP No. 2686 of 2023
OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX
OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NORTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI - 110 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADV. FOR R1;
SRI. H SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-ISSUE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO
RESPONDENT NIA TO EXTRACT AND PRESERVE THE CCTV
IMAGES OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION OF THE EACH
ACCUSED AND EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES UNDER SECTION
161 OF CRPC AND MADE PART AND PARCEL OF CASE DIARY,
WHICH CAN BE USED AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 172
OF CRPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:18664
WP No. 2686 of 2023
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel Sri.Mohammed Tahir,
appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned
counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India, Sri.Shanthi Bhushan H., appearing for
respondent No.2.
2. Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that any order passed under Section 21 of
the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, should be placed
before the Division Bench of the High Court. He seeks to place
reliance upon the judgment of the full Bench of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of MASTIGUDA
ABOOBACKER VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker 5159.
3. He would further submit that all the appeals against
a bail application that is rejected should also be placed and
heard by the Division Bench of the High Court, as the
proceedings arise out of the proceedings under the provisions
of the NIA Act.
NC: 2024:KHC:18664
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the aforesaid
case has held as follows:
"56. It is therefore clear that the powers
exercisable by the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code, viz., to give effect to any order under the Code or
to prevent the abuse of process of any court of
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, are not identical
with the constitutional powers provided under Article
227. In other words, the ambit, intendment and scope
of these two powers are not similar and one cannot be
regarded as a substitute for the other. We, therefore,
hold that availability of supervisory power under Article
227 can never be a reason to exclude the inherent
powers existing in the High Court, which is expressly
saved under Section 482 of the Code. We also hold that
there is no express or implied bar created by the NIA
Act in the exercise of the High Court's inherent powers
safeguarded under Section 482 of the Code. Besides, as
held by the Constitution Bench of the apex Court
in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani and followed in Asian
Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the
Constitution confirmed and revested in the High Court
all the existing powers and jurisdictions, including its
inherent powers. The inherent powers of the High Court,
preserved by Section 561A of the old Code and Section
482 of the present Code, are thus vested in the High
Court by "law" within the meaning of Article 21 of the
Constitution. We shall neither negate nor abdicate or
abridge the inherent powers of the High Court by relying
on some flimsy inferences because the exercise of such
powers will be essentially required in certain cases. We,
therefore, hold that in appropriate cases the High Court
has power to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code to give effect to any order under the Code or
to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
..........
64. In order to dispel the apprehension regarding
causation of delay, we hereby declare that the High
Court's inherent powers saved under Section 482 of the
Code cannot be invoked on flimsy reasons or on trivial
NC: 2024:KHC:18664
grounds. Large body of case law on the point would
clearly show that the powers should be exercised with
great care and caution. Also, the High Court should
apply its sound judicial discretion when a matter is
brought up in the form of a petition under Section 482
of the Code. Unless it is established that one of the
ingredients of Section 482 of the Code is satisfied, the
High Court will take its hands off.
............
66. Hence, we are of the view that when a
petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
challenging an interlocutory order passed in a case
registered under the NIA Act, it shall be placed before a
Bench of two Judges for hearing and disposal. We are
sure that the Bench certainly will consider the issues
raised therein and decide the plea based on the
precedential law relating to the exercise of inherent
powers of the High Court. We are also sure that the
Bench will take note of the prejudice likely to be caused
by a delayed decision."
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, Registry is directed to place the matter before
the Division Bench having appropriate roster.
For statistical purpose, the writ petition stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KG
