The court also concluded that it did “not find any provision enlarging the scope of challenge” of an order framing charges under the NIA Act, “from supervisory jurisdiction to challenge on facts and law”.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that an order framing charges by a special NIA court, is an interlocutory order and not a final order while dismissing a batch of appeals by 19 accused in various NIA cases, including sons of Hizbul Mujahideen chief, who are accused in a 2011 terror-funding case.
Interlocutory orders are deemed to be orders in the nature of being interim or temporary, which do not conclusively decide the rights or liabilities of parties. An order which substantially affects the right of an accused cannot be said to be an interlocutory order.
A division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain dismissed a batch of appeals by 19 accused in NIA cases, which included Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin’s sons Syed Ahmad Shakeel and Shahid Yousuf (whose appeals were pending before the HC since 2021), Kashmiri separatists Masarat Alam Bhat and Shabir Ahmed Shah, Kashmiri businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, and 14 others, all challenging the special NIA court’s orders framing charges.
The bench held the appeals, which were filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, are not maintainable.
The bench reasoned that an “order framing charge, as against final order is an interlocutory order, as it does not decide any proceeding finally and the term ‘intermediate order’ is a concept of revisional jurisdiction, which cannot be applied while interpreting the term ‘appeal’ both on facts and law.”
Relying on SC verdicts and the scope of the NIA Act, which calls for speedy investigation and trial, the bench held that for appeals under Section 21 of the Act, an order “has to be a final order, like a judgment or sentence which can be challenged both on facts and law and conclude proceeding finally”.
“At the stage of framing of Charge, as settled by a catena of judgments, the Court is to summarily look into the evidence collected by the prosecution and to find if a Charge is made out. It is also obliged to see that there is no abuse of process of law or jurisdictional defects in the proceedings. However, the evidence is yet to be led by the parties before the Court and thus, at this stage, the Special Court is not expected to give any definite finding on facts and law, consequently an appeal on facts and law cannot be envisaged,” said the court.