The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that offences under the Indian Penal Code listed as Scheduled Offences under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court (NIA) even if committed prior to the 2019 Amendment. This decision resolves a critical jurisdictional conflict and affirms that procedural continuity must be preserved once a trial has commenced before the designated court.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The accused persons were charged under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for offences relating to counterfeiting currency notes. The FIR was registered on 20.01.2018, and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed. The Special Court (NIA), Bilaspur, took cognizance on 05.01.2022, framed charges, and recorded evidence from four prosecution witnesses.
Procedural History
- 2018: FIR registered under IPC Sections 489-A to 489-C and 201
- 2022: Special Court (NIA), Bilaspur, took cognizance and commenced trial
- 2025: Special Court returned the case to Sessions Court, Janjgir-Champa, citing lack of jurisdiction due to pre-2019 commission of offence
- 2025: Sessions Court referred questions of law to the High Court under Section 436(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Relief Sought
The State sought a legal determination on whether the Special Court (NIA) had jurisdiction, whether the case must be transferred, and whether the trial must restart de novo or continue from the existing stage.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Special Courts (NIA) retain jurisdiction over offences under Sections 489-A to 489-E IPC committed before the NIA (Amendment) Act, 2019, and whether a trial already commenced before such a court may be transferred back to a Sessions Court without de novo proceedings.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/State
The State contended that Sections 489-A to 489-E IPC were already listed as Scheduled Offences under the original Schedule of the NIA Act, 2008, prior to the 2019 Amendment. The Amendment merely renumbered the Schedule and added new offences; it did not alter the pre-existing jurisdictional scope. Relying on Section 22(4) of the NIA Act, the State argued that all pending trials for Scheduled Offences must be transferred to the designated Special Court, and once cognizance is taken and evidence recorded, the trial cannot be unilaterally returned.
For the Respondent/Accused
The accused, through counsel, supported the Special Court’s view that jurisdiction is determined by the date of commission of the offence. They argued that since the offence occurred before the 2019 Amendment, and the Special Court’s expanded jurisdiction was prospective, the case should revert to the Sessions Court for trial under the old regime. No statutory provision, they claimed, mandated continuation of trial before the Special Court for pre-Amendment offences.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a textual and contextual interpretation of the NIA Act, 2008, and its 2019 Amendment. It emphasized that the Schedule to the NIA Act, 2008, explicitly included Sections 489-A to 489-E IPC as Scheduled Offences. The 2019 Amendment did not remove these offences from the Schedule; it only added new ones and renumbered entries. Therefore, the jurisdictional basis existed from 2008.
"The Amendment Act of 2019 merely added certain additional offences by rearranging the serial number of the schedule. Hence, the view taken by the Special Court... that it lacked jurisdiction merely because the offence was committed prior to the Amendment Act, 2019 is therefore legally unsustainable."
The Court further held that Section 22(4) mandates automatic transfer of all pending trials for Scheduled Offences to the designated Special Court. Once cognizance is taken and evidence recorded, the Special Court cannot return the case absent grounds under Section 20 of the NIA Act, which permits transfer only for reasons such as lack of jurisdiction or change in venue. No such grounds existed here.
The Court also rejected the notion of de novo trial, noting that Section 22(4) and principles of judicial efficiency require continuity. Requiring a fresh trial would violate the accused’s right to a speedy trial and waste judicial resources.
The Verdict
The State won. The Court held that Special Courts (NIA) have exclusive jurisdiction over offences under Sections 489-A to 489-E IPC regardless of the date of commission, provided they were Scheduled Offences under the original NIA Act, 2008. The trial must continue from the stage already reached, and no de novo proceeding is required.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdiction Is Determined by Schedule, Not Amendment Date
- Practitioners must verify whether an offence was listed in the original Schedule of the NIA Act, 2008, not merely whether it was added in 2019
- Pre-2019 offences under Sections 489-A to 489-E IPC are triable by Special Courts (NIA) if investigated by a State Agency
- Relying on the date of amendment to deny jurisdiction is legally untenable
Trial Continuity Is Mandatory Once Evidence Is Recorded
- Once a Special Court (NIA) has taken cognizance and recorded evidence, the case cannot be transferred back to a Sessions Court without statutory grounds
- Any attempt to restart trial de novo violates Section 22(4) and principles of procedural economy
- Defence counsel must object to transfer motions on grounds of procedural irregularity
Designation of Special Court Is Binding Across Jurisdictions
- State Government notifications designating Special Courts apply uniformly to all districts under their jurisdiction
- Even if the offence occurred in a district not explicitly named, if the Special Court was designated for that region, jurisdiction attaches
- Practitioners must check the State’s notification under Section 22(1) to confirm territorial jurisdiction
