Dismissed

R. Rahamathullah v. State by

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2023CRL.A/1363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the present criminal appeal not maintainable. The registry raised an objection stating the impugned order was interlocutory in nature. The Court deemed the order rejecting an application for a police report copy under Section 207 Cr.P.C. as interlocutory, thus not appealable.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was returned to the Learned Registrar, treated as not maintainable.

R. Rahamathullah Vs State by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42774-DB CRL.A No. 1363 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1363 OF 2023 (NIA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

R. RAHAMATHULLAH

¶11

MALE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O RIZVAULLA R/O ANGAPPAN STREET MANNADY

¶12

Digitally signed by D HEMA

¶13

CHENNAI-600000

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

JAMAL MOHAMMED USHMANI S/O SHAUL HAMEED AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 160 PALLI VASAL STREET NORTH STREET, PATHAMBADAI TIRUNELVELI-627423

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. A. VELAN., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE BY VIDHANA SOUDHA PS

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:42774-DB CRL.A No. 1363 of 2023

¶23

This Criminal appeal filed under Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act, praying to allow the present application for instructing the investigating agency to provide with a copy of the translated police report in a language known to the appellant i.e., Tamil vide order dated 03.07.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.794/2023 passed by the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (Spl.Court for Trial of NIA cases, Bengaluru).

¶24

This Criminal appeal, coming on for Orders, through physical hearing/video conferencing, this day, Dr. H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., delivered the following:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellant regarding maintainability.

¶27

The registry has raised an office objection

¶28

observing that the present appeal is not maintainable under Section 21(1) of National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (for brevity ‘NIA Act’).

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42774-DB CRL.A No. 1363 of 2023

¶30

Learned Registrar (Judicial) in support of the

¶31

office objection has submitted that, according to the view of the registry, the impugned order is not a final order nor even it is a judgment in a pending case, as such, in view of Section 21 of NIA Act, the appeal is not maintainable.

¶32

Heard the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, who vehemently submitted that appeal is maintainable.

¶33

He attempted to draw an analogy between an order rejecting the bail under NIA Act to the impugned order on hand and also submitted that the Section begins with the opening words “Notwithstanding anything contained” and also it says that, the appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order. Thus, the impugned order, is appealable under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act.

¶34

In the instance case, the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2023, passed by the

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42774-DB CRL.A No. 1363 of 2023

¶36

Special Court rejecting his interlocutory application filed under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. seeking to furnish the copies of the police report and its enclosures in Tamil language, has preferred this appeal.

¶37

Section 21(1) of NIA, Act, reads as below:

¶38

“Notwithstanding anything contained in the code an appeal shall i.e., from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.”

¶39

A reading of the Section goes to show that, the

¶40

appeal under Section 21(1) would lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court.

¶41

In the instance case, the word ‘order’ is required to be read in conjunction with the subsequent words following the same, which is, “not being an interlocutory order”. Admittedly, the impugned order is

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42774-DB CRL.A No. 1363 of 2023

¶43

passed upon an interlocutory application. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the said order on an interlocutory application is a final order, merely because an order is passed upon the interlocutory application would be a final order confining to the said application by the Court disposing of the said interlocutory application, by that itself, it cannot be kept out of the ambit of an order, which is interlocutory in nature. The order in question stands on a separate footing from any interim order and an intermediate order, as such, it is an interlocutory order only.

¶44

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of

¶45

Andhra Pradesh Vs. Mohammed Hussain reported in ( 2014) 1 SCC 258 has held with respect to NIA Act that, interlocutory orders from Special Court other than the orders passed on bail application are not appealable”.

¶46