[UAPA] Whether Magistrate is competent to grant extension of time to file Chargesheet? Supreme Court expected to consider next week

The Supreme Court today adjourned for July 15, a plea which requires consideration as to whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to grant extension of time in terms of Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA Act.

Bench of Justice UU Lalit, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Aniruddha Bose was hearing a petition which stated that the expression “Court” appearing in Section 43D of UAPA is to be seen in the light of definition of “Court” as in Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA Act and as such, the Chief Judicial Magistrate who dealt with the instant matter was not competent to grant extension of time.

The plea which challenged the judgement passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh on September 11, 2017 was argued by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave on petitioner’s behalf wherein he submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the relief of default bail in terms of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with the provisions of UAPA Act.

Sr Adv Pashupathi Nath Razdan, appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala [reported in (2004) (1) SCC 215].

Thereafter considering the importance on this matter, the Court requested for assistance by learned Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and thereafter directed to handover the copies of the paper book be handed to the office of Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General and listed the same for further consideration on 08th July, 2021.

When the matter was taken up today, Justice UU Lalit, presiding judge raised the following questions:

Extension has been granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. If a report is made now and order is passed, then the period originally contemplated by 167, the period will be 180 days. That extension is allowable if an order is passed by the Court. Can this Court be the Magistrate’s court which has issued the remand or does it have to go to the Special Court ? This is the first issue.

“The petitioners have relied upon Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab [reported in (2020) 10 SCC 616]. It will boil down to a fact that rather than CJM taking burden of remand, the person will be produced before Special Court and thereby burdening itself with mundane issues,” Justice UU Lalit further said.

Responding to questions posed by Justice UU Lalit, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said,

“The answer can be found under section 167 which has been modified by Section 43D. It doesn’t touch upon the fact of the competent Magistrate having the power to grant remand. CrPC has been modified; it doesn’t apply to UAPA. There are judgments of this Hon'ble Court which say that even Special Court Judges are Magistrate. The word “Court” means “Court” used in CrPC. Magistrate is a court as per CrPC.”

Justice UU Lalit at this juncture remarked that, “What you are submitting is counter to Bikramjit Singh. Then the matter stands on a different footing. Then a larger Bench will have to hear this because that judgment is of 3 judges.”

Upon ASG Raju’s request to hear the matter next week, the Court has thereafter kept the matter for further consideration on next Thursday i.e. July 15. The Court also took note of Justice Lalit filing convenience compilation.

Case Title: Sadique & Ors. V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh