RSS worker's murder: Karnataka High Court rejects plea by accused for transfer of case from Special Court to Sessions Court

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by the persons accused in the 2016 murder of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) activist Rudresh [Irfan Pasha v. State of Karnataka]..A Full Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices B Veerappa and P Krishna Bhat declined the prayer by the petitioners seeking transfer of the criminal case from the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Special Court to a Sessions Court.The Bench was specially constituted to adjudicate the following questions:1) Whether an interlocutory application filed and dismissed by a Special Court would give rise to filing an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008?2) Whether appeal lies under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against an order passed on an interlocutory application filed under Section 20 of the Act?The Bench answered both these questions in the negative and dismissed the criminal appeal as not maintainable. .The appeal was filed by the four accused - Irfan Pasha, Waseem Ahmed, Mohammed Sadiq and Mohammed Mujeeb Ullah. They filed an application under Section 20 of the NIA Act seeking a transfer to a regular Sessions Court.The transfer was sought on the grounds that the chargesheet was defective with regard to the offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and therefore, the Special Court would not have the jurisdiction to try it..On October 16, 2016, Rudresh, a city secretary of the RSS, was returning from an organisational meeting in Bangalore when two men on a motorcycle carrying machetes attacked and murdered him. The police arrested the four accused in connection with the murder. On December 7, 2016, the Union Home Ministry issued an order directing the NIA to investigate the case, to probe if there was a larger conspiracy in the attacks on RSS activists in Karnataka and elsewhere..The four appellants in the case were charged by a Special Court in Bangalore under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 (license for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition) and 27 (punishment for using arms) of the Arms Act, and Sections 15 (terrorist act) 16 (punishment for terrorist act) 17 (raising funds for terrorist act) 18 (conspiracy) and 20 (punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organisation) of the UAPA..After hearing the parties, the High Court noted that the matter of appeals from any judgment, sentence or order from a Special NIA Court is regulated under Section 21 of the NIA Act. Section 20 deals with the power to transfer cases to regular courts, while Section 21 contains the circumstances under which an appeal under the NIA Act can lie. .With regard to the legal position, the Bench observed that the Supreme Court had said that in view of the stringency of sentence on conviction under the Act and the exacting nature of bail, the intention of the legislature is clear that the trial should be done at a faster pace.The NIA Act drastically reduces the avenues for parties to approach the High Court through an appeal, which is made clear by a reading of Section 21 of the Act. Section 21 of the NIA Act does not mention a right of appeal against an interlocutory order except for bail, the Court noted while referring to the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd Hussain.The Supreme Court had observed that under Section 19 (trial by Special Court to have precedence) of the NIA Act, the trial is to proceed day-to-day, and must be conducted expeditiously, which is why no appeal is provided against interlocutory orders passed by the Special Court..Advocate S Balakrishnan represented the appellants while and Standing Counsel Prasanna Kumar P represented the State. .[Read Order on Reference]