A) Abstract / Headnote

This case examines the legality of the extension of remand under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the jurisdiction of the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, to permit the addition of UAPA charges. The Supreme Court analyzed the interplay between the UAPA, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act). The Court concluded that while the Chief Judge was within jurisdiction to permit adding UAPA charges, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s extension of remand beyond 90 days without specific authorization was illegal. However, since the accused did not apply for default bail, procedural defects did not invalidate the trial’s continuance.

Keywords: UAPA, NIA Act, Remand Extension, Jurisdiction, Default Bail.

B) Case Details

i) Judgment Cause Title: The State of West Bengal v. Jayeeta Das

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2128 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date: April 18, 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta

vi) Author: Justice Sandeep Mehta

vii) Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 640 : 2024 INSC 313

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; Section 167 and 43D(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: High Court judgment in C.R.R. No. 3180 of 2022

x) Case is Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Terrorism Law, and Procedural Law.

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

This case arises from a challenge to the inclusion of UAPA charges and the legality of the extension of remand by lower courts. The prosecution initiated charges against the respondent under various sections of the IPC, alleging involvement with the banned CPI (Maoist) organization. Subsequent investigations warranted inclusion of UAPA offenses, which were permitted by the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court. However, the respondent questioned the validity of these proceedings, arguing lack of jurisdiction and procedural violations under the NIA Act and UAPA.

D) Facts of the Case

1. An FIR was registered based on a complaint regarding recovery of Maoist literature and incriminating materials from a location in Kolkata.
2. The respondent was arrested and remanded by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), and additional charges under the UAPA were proposed.
3. The Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, permitted adding UAPA charges but extended the remand period beyond 90 days, which the respondent challenged in the High Court.
4. The High Court held that the extension and addition of charges were without jurisdiction, setting aside these orders.
5. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the Sessions Court had jurisdiction under the NIA Act and UAPA provisions.

E) Legal Issues Raised

i. Whether the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, had jurisdiction to add UAPA charges and extend the remand.

ii. Whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate could extend remand beyond 90 days under UAPA provisions.

iii. Whether procedural irregularities invalidated subsequent proceedings.

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. The appellant argued that as no Special Court was constituted under Section 22 of the NIA Act, the Sessions Court had jurisdiction over UAPA cases.
2. They emphasized that the jurisdictional interpretation of Section 22(3) of the NIA Act vested powers in the Chief Judge to permit UAPA charges.
3. The appellant acknowledged procedural errors but contended that the respondent forfeited the right to default bail by not applying within the prescribed period.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. The respondent emphasized the illegality of proceedings since a Special Court had been constituted under the NIA Act by the Central Government in 2011.
2. The defense argued that the Chief Judge and CMM lacked authority to proceed with UAPA-related charges, making all subsequent proceedings invalid.
3. They underscored that procedural lapses could not be remedied retroactively, and the remand extension violated statutory provisions.

H) Related Legal Provisions

i. Section 43D(2) of UAPA permits extension of remand up to 180 days by specific courts under defined conditions.

ii. Section 22 of the NIA Act vests jurisdiction with Sessions Courts until a Special Court is notified.

iii. Section 167 of CrPC governs general remand provisions but is modified under UAPA.

I) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, was competent to permit the inclusion of UAPA charges under Section 22(3) of the NIA Act.
2. The extension of remand by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate beyond 90 days was illegal without specific authorization under UAPA.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court acknowledged procedural irregularities but held that failure to seek default bail within prescribed timelines precluded relief to the respondent.

c. Guidelines

1. In the absence of Special Courts, jurisdiction lies with the Sessions Court as per Section 22(3) of the NIA Act.
2. Remand extensions under UAPA require strict compliance with statutory conditions and cannot exceed 90 days without higher court approval.

J) Conclusion & Comments

The judgment reiterates the necessity of adherence to procedural law in cases involving stringent statutes like UAPA. The decision balances statutory jurisdiction with procedural justice, ensuring that lapses do not inherently vitiate substantive justice.

K) References

i. Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616
ii. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Sections 11, 22
iii. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 16, 18, 43D
iv. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 167, 482
v. Gazette Notification dated April 29, 2011, constituting Special Courts under NIA Act.