Mrityunjay Kumar Singh Alias Mrityunjay Kumar Alias Mrityunjay Kr Singh Alias Sonu Singh vs. Union Of INDIA Through The National Investigation Agency

Held

The High Court held that at the stage of discharge (Section 227 Cr.P.C.) and framing of charges (Section 228 Cr.P.C.), the court is only required to evaluate the evidence to determine if there is a prima facie case, not to weigh the evidence exhaustively. The Court found that the material collected by the NIA, as referred to in the counter-affidavit and considered at face value, discloses the presence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences. Regarding the appellant's argument that paying levy does not attract Section 17 of the UAPA, the Court rejected this, stating there is sufficient material to attract the section and that the plea of compulsion is not a valid defence, referencing a previous decision by a co-ordinate bench. The Court also found the appellant's reliance on the Bombay High Court judgment in 'Mohammad Gausuddin' to be misplaced as it dealt with bail, not discharge. The argument regarding mens rea was also dismissed, as the appellant's direct contact and money transactions with the proscribed group's commander indicated clear intention. Consequently, the Court found no substance in the grounds agitated for interfering with the rejection of the discharge application and the framing of charges. The findings are restricted to the discharge/framing of charges stage and will not prejudice the trial court.

Facts

The appellant, Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, is appealing two orders from the Special NIA Court. The first appeal (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 356 of 2023) challenges the rejection of his discharge application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The second appeal (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 666 of 2023) challenges the framing of charges against him. The case originates from an incident on November 22, 2019, where members of CPI (Maoist) fired on a police patrolling party, killing four personnel and looting arms. The appellant was arrested on February 3, 2021, and the NIA's first supplementary charge-sheet alleged he was a local contractor who provided financial support to the banned organization. Specifically, it was alleged he agreed to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- in levy and paid Rs. 2,00,000/-, thereby strengthening the organization for waging war against the Government of India.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the appellant's discharge application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., considering the alleged non-availability of ingredients for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 121, 121A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 39, and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)? 2. Whether the learned Special Judge erred in framing charges against the appellant under Section 120B read with Sections 121, 121A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 39, and 40 of the UAPA, 1967? Arguments for the Appellant: The appellant argued that the sole allegation of paying levy does not constitute conspiracy under Section 120B IPC or waging war under Sections 121/121A IPC, as there was no allegation of conspiring to cause the specific incident. Furthermore, he contended that the ingredients for Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 39, and 40 of the UAPA are not met. Specifically, Section 10 pertains to membership of an unlawful association, which he claims is not applicable. He also argued that the payment of levy does not necessarily attract Section 17 of the UAPA and that mens rea is absent, citing precedents like 'Mohammad Gausuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra' and 'People's Union for Civil Liberties & Another'. Arguments for the Respondent: The respondent (Union of India through NIA) did not present specific arguments in the provided excerpt, but the Court's reasoning implies that the material collected during the investigation, including the appellant's direct contact with a Regional Commander of the proscribed group and his involvement in money transactions, sufficiently indicated his intention and established the ingredients of the alleged offences.