Skip to main content

Trained Judicial Officers Ignorant Of Procedure To Be Adopted In A Case Involving Offences Under The UAP Act: Madras HC, Directs Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy To Conduct A Refresher Course For The Judicial Officers

Trained Judicial Officers Ignorant Of Procedure To Be Adopted In A Case Involving Offences Under The UAP Act: Madras HC, Directs Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy To Conduct A Refresher Course For The Judicial Officers


The Hon’ble Madras High Court has reprimanded trained Judicial Officers for being ignorant as to the procedure to be adopted in a case involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAP Act”).


The Bench comprising Justice P.N. Prakash and Justice N. Anand Venkatesh directed Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to conduct a refresher course for the judicial officers, by focusing on the special enactments like UAP Act, POCSO Act, SC/ST Act, NDPS Act, etc. and make them aware of the procedure to be followed at the time of remand, extension of remand, extension of remand period from 90 days to 180 days, provided under certain enactments, taking cognizance of the final report etc.


Also Read - Delay in submitting the forensic test report due to the lack of adequate manpower poses a significant challenge to the administration of justice: Orissa High Court


The Division Bench noted that the Ambur police had registered a case against one Mir Anas Ali on July 30, 2022 on the charge of being associated with ISIS, and he was arrested on the same day for offences alleged under UAP Act and IPC after which he was remanded to judicial custody by a Magistrate.


Due to non-completion of investigation within 90 days of his arrest, the Mir Anas Ali preferred a bail application before the Magistrate on November 11, 2022 which was returned by the Magistrate on the ground that the bail plea could be preferred only before the Sessions Court.


Also Read - Admissions conducted through private counselling are per se illegal: Supreme Court dismisses plea of students admitted through private counselling


When the Appellant approached the Sessions Court, his default bail petition was forwarded to the Magistrate, with a direction that no papers must be sent to the Court of Session, till a final report is filed, cognizance is taken and the matter is committed to the Court of Session. The Hon'ble High Court observed that this direction given by the learned Sessions Judge, is in total ignorance of the provisions of the UAP Act and the judgment of the Full Bench in Jaffar Sathiq Vs. State [2021 (4) CTC 497].


Thereafter, the Magistrate denied bail to the Appellant on the ground that it had allowed petition filed by Ambur Police for extending the remand period from 90 to 120 days. The Hon'ble High Court noted that the petition for extension of remand period was filed after filing of the bail petition and therefore the denial of statutory bail on the ground of allowing a petition for extension of remand period which was filed after the former petition is contrary to the well settled law.


Also Read - Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court


The Hon'ble Court further held that the learned Magistrate did not have the power and/or jurisdiction to entertain both the aforesaid petitions and whatever orders that were passed by learned Magistrate in the said two petitions, are non est in the eye of law and these orders are liable to be set aside on this ground alone, even without going into the merits of the case.


The Hon'ble Court granted relief to the Appellant observing that "as a Constitutional Court, we have to necessarily deal with this petition and recognize the statutory right of the appellant and grant the appropriate relief. While doing so, we find that the extension petition filed by the respondent was much after the filing of the statutory bail petition and that apart, the order that was passed in this petition has already been held to be non est in the eye of law. Consequently, there is no scope for extension of time and the statutory period has come to an end on 27.10.2022 and we have to necessarily grant default bail to the appellant."



CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another.  Also Read:  Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

  In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...
Post a Comment
Read more

Application by a Necessary Party Seeking Recall of an Ex-Parte Order is Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court ruled that every Court and Tribunal possess inherent power to set aside an ex-parte order as a form of 'procedural review,' distinct from the statutory power to review a case on merits. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that revenue authorities can recall an ex-parte order to correct procedural defects and ensure justice between the parties. This inherent power allows the Court or Tribunal to correct procedural illegality that invalidates the proceedings and the order itself.  The case in question involved a recall application against an ex-parte order passed under Section 24 of the UP Revenue Code. The Court held that a recall application can be maintained by non-parties if they are necessary parties to the proceedings.  The judgment emphasizes the principle of natural justice that no adverse orders should be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing, and a recall can be sought to correct procedural errors.  The Court clarif...
Post a Comment
Read more