Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: CrPC Applicable to J&K Only Post Article 370 Abrogation

FacebookFacebookTwitterTwitterEmailEmailWhatsAppWhatsAppLinkedInLinkedInShareShare

In the case of National Investigation Agency New Delhi v. Owais Amin @ Cherry & Ors., the Supreme Court clarified that the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) would be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) only from the date of the abrogation of Article 370 on October 31, 2019, and not before that.

This ruling came as the apex court addressed an appeal challenging a judgment from the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, which upheld a decision from the Special Judge, National Investigation Agency (NIA) Jammu, albeit partially. The bench, comprised of Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti, deliberated on the matter.

Here is the full story:

  • Respondents faced charges under multiple sections of the RPC, Explosive Substances Act, UAPA, and Jammu & Kashmir Public Property Act for attempting to ambush a CRPF convoy with a car laden with explosives.
  • The case was initially registered by local police but re-registered by the NIA following an MHA order.
  • During proceedings, the Special Judge, NIA, found non-compliance with prescribed forms under CrPC, 1989, leading to the dismissal of certain charges.
  • However, the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir overturned the decision on two points but upheld the need for authorization under Section 196-A of CrPC, 1989.
  • The Supreme Court observed distinctions between Sections 196 and 196-A of CrPC, 1989 and clarified that the CrPC, 1973 would govern the field only from October 31, 2019, with the CrPC, 1989 standing repealed.
  • Any ongoing investigation as of the repeal of the former statute would continue under CrPC, 1989, but the application of law would be under CrPC, 1973, ensuring compliance with procedures.
  • The court held that non-compliance with earlier procedures under the repealed Code would not automatically benefit an accused, as it is a curable process depending on circumstances.
  • The requirement of authorization for conveying a complaint is mandatory, even if it occurs at the conclusion of an investigation, as it signifies completion of the investigation process.
  • The complaint was conveyed by the District Magistrate before the appointed day of the Act, 2019, indicating the application of CrPC, 1989 during the investigation’s completion.
  • Consequently, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Special Judge.

Read More: Supreme CourtDelhi High CourtStates High CourtOther CourtsInternational

Payal Singh

Recent Posts

Money Laundering Case: Delhi HC Reserves Order On Jacqueline Fernandez’s Plea

The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a petition filed by Bollywood…

4 hours ago

Delhi Court Rejects Tahawwur Rana’s Plea For Family Contact

The Patiala House Court in Delhi on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by Tahawwur Hussain…

4 hours ago

OYO Moves Delhi HC To Restrain Media From Reporting On FIR For Fake Bookings

The Delhi High Court issued notice on a plea filed by OYO Hotels & Homes,…

5 hours ago

Nitish Katara Murder Case: SC Grants Interim Bail To Vikas Yadav Till May 8

The Supreme Court on Thursday granted interim bail to Vikas Yadav, who is serving a…

6 hours ago

Delhi HC Orders Salary Attachment Of TMC MP Saket Gokhale Over Defamation Case

Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale is facing legal action after…

7 hours ago

Kerala Gold Smuggling Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Accused

In a key development in the Kerala gold smuggling case, the Supreme Court on Thursday…

10 hours ago