Read Time: 04 minutes

While relying on the law laid down by it in State of Andhra Pradesh through Inspector General, National Investigation Agency vs. Mohd. Hussain alias Saleem and Bikramjit Singh vs. State of  Punjab and considering Section 21 of the NIA Act, the Supreme Court on Friday said that any order passed by the Special Court, not being an interlocutory order, when subjected to appeal before the High Court, would be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court.

The State of Kerala had approached the Supreme Court by way of appeal, challenging the judgment and order passed by the High Court wherein it had allowed the Revision Petitions preferred by the respondent-accused and had discharged him for the offences under Sections 20 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and other offence under Section 124A of the IPC.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the impugned judgment and order, which was passed by the Single Judge was unsustainable.

He argued that in view of Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, the revision application against the order passed by the Special Court refusing to discharge the accused ought to have been heard by the Division Bench as mandated under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the NIA Act.

A bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna agreed with this submission and noted such a decision to be absolutely contrary to the statutory provision and the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, while allowing the appeals, the matters have been remanded to the High Court to decide the Revision Petition afresh by the Division Bench in accordance with law and on merits, preferably within a period of six months.

Cause Title: State of Kerala & Ors v Roopesh