Madras High Court
A.Mohamed Irfan vs Union Of India on 20 November, 2024
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
CRL.A.No.1127 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRL.A.No.1127 of 2023
and
CRL.M.P.No.16548 of 2023
A.Mohamed Irfan ... Appellant
Vs.
Union of India
Rep. by The Inspector of Police
National Investigation Agency
Chennai
(R.C.No.20/2022/NIA/DLI) ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 21(1) of National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008, to set aside the order passed in Criminal M.P. No. 717 of
2022 dated 07.07.2023 on the file of the Special Court under the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial for
Bomb Blast Cases Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai as illegal.
For Appellant : Mr.I.Abdul Basith
For Respondent : Mr.R.Karthikeyan - Special PP (NIA)
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.A.No.1127 of 2023
JUDGMENT
[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Under assail is the order dated 7th July, 2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.717
of 2022 in Special S.C. No. 2 of 2022 on the file of the Special Court under
the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Sessions Court for Exclusive
Trial for Bomb Blast Cases Chennai at Poonamalee, Chennai.
2. The appellant is an accused No.3. On 21.02.2022, an FIR was
registered by the State Police in Crime No. 165 of 2022 under Section 148,
506 (ii) of IPC read with Section 28 of the Arms Act, 1959. Thereafter, the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division vide its
order dated 29.04.2022 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section
6(5) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008,
directed the National Investigation Agency to take up the investigation.
Accordingly, the case registered by the State Police was re-registered as FIR
in RC No.20/2022/NIA/DLI dated 30.04.2022 under Section 148, 506 (ii)
IPC read with Section 13, 38, 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and Section 28 of Arms Act, 1959. Consequently, the appellant was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
arrested by the respondent Police. Investigation completed and charge sheet
filed. The Trial Court took cognizances and the case was numbered as
Special S.C. No. 2 of 2022. The appellant preferred Discharge Petition under
Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Mr.I.Abdul Basith, learned counsel for the appellant would mainly
contend that there is no material available on record to charge the appellant
under Sections 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
[hereinafter referred as ‘UA(P) Act’]. The State Police originally registered
an FIR which was subsequently transferred to National Investigation
Agency. The National Investigation Agency in the absence of any material
implicated the appellant as accused No.3 despite the fact that prima facie
offence has been made only against the A1 and A2 in the criminal case. In
order to substantiate the said arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant
would solicit our attention with reference to Arms recovered, which is an Air
gun and to possess the same no license is required under the Arms Act.
4. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the NIA would oppose by stating that sufficient evidences are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
collected so as to implicate A3 and A4 in the criminal case protected
witnesses have given statements and the statements of the protected witness
would reveal that prima facie case has been made against the appellant for
conducting trial. The allegations in charge sheet has been relied on by the
Prosecutor so as to establish that the appellant has involved in the
commission of offence under UA(P) Act. Thus, the appeal is to be rejected.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made between to the parties
to the lis on hand.
6. It is not in dispute that the case was initially registered on the basis of
the written complaint of G.Arivazhagan, Sub-Inspector of Mayiladuthurai
Police Station, by P.Selvam, Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police
Station. Crime No. 165 of 2022 was registered on 21.01.2022 against 5
accused persons viz., (A-1) Sathik Batcha, (A-2) Mohamed Ashiq, (A-3)
Mohamed Irfan, (A-4) Jegabar Ali and (A-5) Rahamathullah under Sections
148, 506 (ii) of IPC read with 28 of Arms Act, 1959.
7. Subsequently, the Government of India issued an order and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
consequently, National Investigation Agency launched their investigation.
8. We have gone through the charge sheet filed in Special S.C. No. 2 of
2022 regarding the allegations against the appellant/A3. It is relevant to
consider Para 17.22 of the charge sheet, which reads as under:-
“17.22 Investigation revealed that in continuation of their
conspiracy, accused A-1 and A-2 along with other accused
persons namely Mohamed Irfan (A-3) and Rahamathulla (A-5)
were at Tamil Nadu Haj Services Society, No.3, Demellows
Road, Choolai, Chennai-600112 (Latitude:13.09336738;
Longitude: 80.26793649) during the period 23.01.2022 to
19.02.2022. During that period, the main conspirators accused
A-1 and A-2 met with the co-conspirators, Mohamed Irfan (A-
3) and Rahamathulla (A-4) and the room No.405 was booked
in the name of Mohamed Ashiq (A-2) for conducting
conspiracy meetings.”
In the context of the above allegations in the charge sheet, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor furnished the statement of protected witness and
we had at the benefit of reading the statement of the said protected witness.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The witness also speaks about the allegations and discussed how Khilafah
Party of India name can be used in hood wing the police instead of ISIS. The
moto of Khilafah Party of India was to establish Islamic Rule in India by
over throwing the present Government set up. The idea for establishing an
Islamic Rule were also discussed between the accused persons and spelled
out in the statement of the protected witness.
9. This Court cannot appreciate the statement made by the protected
witness or the allegations set out in the charge sheet. The scope of Section
227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited and if upon consideration
of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the
Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.
Therefore, the Courts have to find out whether there is any prima facie
material available on record to get along with the trial against the accused
persons.
10. In the context of the facts revealed, the Special Court considered the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
nature of charges and formed an opinion that the respondent has obtained a
sanction in order to prosecute under Section 120 B of IPC besides Sections
18 and 39 of UA(P) Act 1967.
11. Regarding the sufficiency of grounds to proceed with the trial, the trial
Court made a findings that the final report goes to show that LW1 to LW8
speaks about the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the
offence. LW50 speaks about the confession statement of the appellant and
other accused No.2. LW60 speaks about the search at the residence of the
appellant. LW62 speaks about the search and seizure, LW77 speaks about
the social media extraction, LW78 speaks about the search, and LW99, 102
& 107 speaks about the role of A1 to A3. Document Nos. 2, 39, 45 and 47
speaks about the search and seizures of incriminating articles, Document
Nos. 55 and 71 speaks about the conspiration. Material objects 24 and 25
mobile phone was seized from the house of the appellant.
12. The trial Court rightly formed an opinion that charge under Section
120B of IPC would be proved only when all the witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution with the available evidence against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant.
13. In view of the above findings and having gone through the nature of
materials available on record, we are satisfied that prosecutable materials are
available against the accused person to get along with the trial.
14. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the
Special Court, which is impugned in the present criminal appeal and
accordingly, the same stands confirmed and this criminal appeal stands
dismissed. However, the trial Court may proceed with the trial uninfluenced
by the observations made in this order, if any relating to the facts.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
20.11.2024
Maya
Index : Yes
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Special Court
under the National Investigation Agency
Act, 2008, Sessions Court for Exclusive
Trial for Bomb Blast Cases Chennai
Poonamallee.
2. The Inspector of Police,
National Investigation Agency,
Chennai.
3. The Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Maya
against
Dated : 20.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
