Supreme Court clarifies procedure for criminal conspiracy cases under Ranbir Penal Code: National Investigation Agency vs. Owais Amin & Ors. (2024) INSC 447 (17 May 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 17 May 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 447
Judges: M. M. Sundresh, J. and S. V. N. Bhatti, J.

What happens when a procedural law is repealed and replaced? Does the new law apply to ongoing investigations? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning criminal conspiracy in Jammu and Kashmir. The court clarified the procedure for taking cognizance of offenses under Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), 1989, in light of the repeal of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1989, and the introduction of the CrPC, 1973, through the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices M. M. Sundresh and S. V. N. Bhatti.

Case Background

The case originated from an incident where the respondents allegedly attempted to attack a convoy of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) using a car laden with explosives. The attempt failed due to a premature explosion, and the respondents fled the scene. Initially, a case was registered by the local police under various sections of the RPC, 1989, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

Subsequently, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) re-registered the case on April 15, 2019, following an order from the Ministry of Home Affairs. On September 20, 2019, the District Magistrate of Ramban conveyed a complaint to the NIA Court, as per Sections 196 and 196-A of the CrPC, 1989. The NIA completed its investigation and filed a charge sheet on September 25, 2019, against the respondents under various sections of the RPC, 1989, the UAPA, 1967, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Jammu & Kashmir Public Property (Prevention of Damage) Act, 1985.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Special Judge, NIA, initially held that the complaint by the District Magistrate was not in the prescribed form and did not satisfy Section 4(1)(e) of the CrPC, 1989. The Special Judge also ruled that cognizance could not be taken for offenses under Sections 121, 121-A, and 122 of the RPC, 1989, due to non-compliance with Section 196-B of the CrPC, 1989, and for Section 120-B of the RPC, 1989, due to lack of authorization under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989. Cognizance was taken for the remaining offenses.

Both the NIA and the respondents appealed this decision. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held that the Special Judge was incorrect in finding that the complaint was not in accordance with Section 4(1)(e) of the CrPC, 1989, and that there was no mandatory preliminary investigation needed under Section 196-B of the CrPC, 1989. However, the High Court upheld the Special Judge’s finding regarding the lack of authorization under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989. The High Court remitted the case back to the Special Judge for reconsideration of charges under Sections 306 and 411 of the RPC, 1989, and Section 39 of the UAPA, 1967, though the Special Judge had already taken cognizance of these offences.

The Supreme Court, in this appeal, focused on the applicability of Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, in light of the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined several key legal provisions:

• Section 4(1)(e) of the CrPC, 1989: Defines “complaint” as an allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action, but excludes a police report.
• Section 196 of the CrPC, 1989: States that no court shall take cognizance of offenses against the State (under Chapter VI or IX-A of the RPC, 1989, except Section 127 and Section 171-F, or under Sections 108-A, 153-A, 294-A, 295-A, or 505 of the RPC, 1989) unless upon a complaint made by order of, or under authority from the Government, or District Magistrate, or other empowered officer.
• Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989: Prohibits courts from taking cognizance of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the RPC, 1989, under certain circumstances, unless a complaint is made by order of, or under the authority of the Government or an empowered officer. Specifically, sub-section (1) applies when the object of the conspiracy is an illegal act, a legal act by illegal means, or an offense to which Section 196 applies. Sub-section (2) applies when the object is a non-cognizable offense or a cognizable offense not punishable with death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for two years or more, unless the Government or District Magistrate consents in writing.
• Section 196A of the CrPC, 1898: Similar to Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, but applicable before the enactment of the CrPC, 1973.
• Section 95 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019: Provides that all Central laws in Table 1 of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Union Territory of Ladakh.
• Fifth Schedule, Table 1 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019: Lists Central laws applicable to the Union Territories, including the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Fifth Schedule, Table 3 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019: Lists State laws repealed in the Union Territories, including the Code of Criminal Procedure, Samvat 1989.
• Section 103 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019: Empowers the President to remove difficulties in giving effect to the Act’s provisions.
• Para 2(13) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019: Specifies that the repeal of laws in Table 3 of the Fifth Schedule shall not affect previous operations, rights, obligations, liabilities, penalties, forfeitures, punishments, investigations, legal proceedings, or remedies.

The Court noted that Section 196 of the CrPC, 1989, mandates that a court can only take cognizance of offenses against the State upon a complaint by the Government or a District Magistrate. Similarly, Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, requires a complaint by the Government or an empowered officer for offenses of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the RPC, 1989.

Arguments

The following arguments were presented by the parties:

• Appellant (NIA):
  • The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, had come into force, and therefore, the impugned judgment should be set aside.
  • The requirement of obtaining authorization or empowerment under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, was no longer necessary.
• Respondents:
  • The impugned judgment correctly applied the legal position prevailing at the time the complaint was conveyed, when the CrPC, 1989, was in force.
  • Procedural laws cannot be applied retrospectively, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, does not specify that the CrPC, 1973, would apply retrospectively.
  • Section 103 of the Act, 2019, along with Para 2(13)(d) of the Order, 2019, makes it clear that the CrPC, 1989, should have been applied, especially since there was a clear non-compliance with its provisions.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondents lies in their reliance on the specific provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, particularly Para 2(13)(d), to argue that the procedural requirements under the repealed CrPC, 1989, should still apply to ongoing investigations initiated under that code. This argument effectively countered the appellant’s claim that the new CrPC, 1973, should apply retrospectively.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The key issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, is applicable in light of the provisions and mandate contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the CrPC, 1973, does not apply retrospectively. The Court noted that while an investigation initiated under the CrPC, 1989, could continue under the CrPC, 1973, a clear non-compliance with the former cannot be ignored by applying the latter.

The Court emphasized that the requirement of authorization or empowerment under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, is mandatory for conveying a complaint, especially at the conclusion of the investigation. However, this does not preclude the investigating agency from complying with it subsequently.

The Court agreed with the High Court of Calcutta’s decision in Nibaran Chandra v. Emperor, 1929 A.I.R. 1929 Calcutta 754, which allowed the prosecution to proceed afresh after obtaining the necessary sanction.

The Court held that the requirement of an authorization or an empowerment is mandatory for conveying a complaint under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a strong emphasis on procedural compliance and the principle that laws, particularly procedural ones, should not be applied retrospectively unless explicitly stated. The Court’s reasoning highlighted the following points:

• Non-Retrospective Application: The Court emphasized that the CrPC, 1973, could not be applied retrospectively to cases where investigations were initiated under the CrPC, 1989. This was a key factor in the Court’s decision to uphold the requirement of authorization under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989.
• Procedural Compliance: The Court stressed the importance of complying with the procedural requirements of the law in force at the time of the initiation of the proceedings. The requirement of authorization under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, was deemed mandatory and not a mere formality.
• Curable Defect: The Court recognized that the lack of authorization was a curable defect and allowed the investigating agency to rectify the omission by obtaining the necessary authorization.
• Continuity of Proceedings: The Court clarified that while the CrPC, 1973, applied prospectively, it did not invalidate the proceedings initiated under the CrPC, 1989. The proceedings could continue under the new code, provided the procedural requirements of the old code were complied with.
• Fairness and Justice: The Court’s decision was also guided by the principle of fairness and justice. It did not want to penalize the respondents for the investigating agency’s failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under the CrPC, 1989.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal considerations, with a higher percentage of focus on the interpretation and application of the relevant laws and procedures, rather than the specific factual aspects of the case.

The Court considered the argument that the CrPC, 1973, should apply retrospectively, but rejected it based on the principle that procedural laws should not be applied retrospectively unless explicitly stated. The Court also considered the argument that the repeal of the CrPC, 1989, rendered the requirement of authorization under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, redundant. However, the Court held that the repeal did not affect the ongoing investigations initiated under the old code.

The Court’s decision was clear and accessible. It held that the CrPC, 1973, does not have retrospective application, and the requirement of authorization or empowerment under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, remains mandatory for cases initiated before the enactment of the CrPC, 1973.

The Court provided the following reasons for its decision:

• The CrPC, 1973, does not have retrospective application.
• The requirement of authorization under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, is mandatory for cases initiated before the enactment of the CrPC, 1973.
• The lack of authorization is a curable defect.
• The investigating agency can rectify the omission by obtaining the necessary authorization.

The Supreme Court did not have any dissenting or concurring opinions.

The Court’s decision clarifies that the procedural requirements of the CrPC, 1989, must be followed for cases initiated under that code, even after its repeal. This ensures that the rights of the accused are protected and that the legal process is followed correctly. The Court’s decision also provides clarity on the application of the new CrPC, 1973, which applies prospectively and does not invalidate ongoing investigations.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Section 196-A of CrPC, 1989 only deals with specified classes of criminal conspiracy for the purpose of prosecution.”

“Though Sections 196 and 196-A of CrPC, 1989 seem to be similar insofar as the authority competent to convey a complaint is concerned, under Section 196 of CrPC, 1989, a District Magistrate can lodge it by himself, whereas, the same provision is not available under Section 196-A of CrPC, 1989.”

“It is to be noted, that a mere non-compliance of an earlier procedure mentioned in the repealed Code by itself would not enure to the benefit of an accused, the procedure being a curable one, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case offers several key takeaways:

• Procedural Compliance is Mandatory: The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the law in force at the time of the initiation of proceedings. Non-compliance with these requirements can have significant consequences for the validity of the proceedings.
• Non-Retrospective Application of Laws: The Court reiterated the principle that procedural laws should not be applied retrospectively unless explicitly stated. This means that the law in force at the time of the initiation of the proceedings will generally apply to those proceedings.
• Curable Defects: While strict adherence to procedure is essential, the Court also recognized that certain defects, such as the lack of authorization under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, are curable. This means that the investigating agency can rectify such defects and continue the proceedings.
• Clarity on Application of New Laws: The judgment clarifies that the new CrPC, 1973, applies prospectively and does not invalidate ongoing investigations initiated under the old CrPC, 1989. However, the procedural requirements of the old code must be complied with for those ongoing investigations.
• Protection of Accused’s Rights: The Court’s decision reflects a concern for the protection of the rights of the accused. It ensures that the accused are not penalized for the investigating agency’s failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of the law.
• Importance of Authorization: The judgment emphasizes the importance of obtaining the necessary authorization for conveying a complaint, especially in cases of criminal conspiracy. This is not a mere formality but a mandatory procedural requirement.

The judgment serves as a reminder that procedural compliance is not a mere formality but an essential aspect of the legal process. It also underscores the importance of understanding the temporal application of laws, particularly when new laws are enacted or old laws are repealed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in National Investigation Agency vs. Owais Amin & Ors. (2024) INSC 447 provides crucial clarity on the procedure for criminal conspiracy cases in Jammu and Kashmir, particularly in light of the repeal of the CrPC, 1989, and the introduction of the CrPC, 1973. The Court’s emphasis on procedural compliance and the non-retrospective application of laws ensures that the legal process is followed correctly and the rights of the accused are protected.

The Court’s decision underscores the importance of obtaining the necessary authorization for conveying a complaint under Section 196-A of the CrPC, 1989, in cases initiated before the enactment of the CrPC, 1973. While the new code applies prospectively, it does not invalidate ongoing investigations initiated under the old code, provided the procedural requirements of the old code are complied with.

The judgment also serves as a reminder that procedural compliance is not a mere formality but an essential aspect of the legal process. It highlights the need for investigating agencies to be diligent in following the procedural requirements of the law in force at the time of the initiation of proceedings.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that the legal process is followed correctly, the rights of the accused are protected, and that the investigating agencies are held accountable for their actions.