JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) : The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 20.03.2024, passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Roorkee, District Haridwar. By the impugned order, the Investigating Officer has been given 90 days further time to complete the investigation in Case Crime No. 599 of 2023, under Section 387, 506, 120B IPC and Section 15 (c), 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967(“UAPA”) (“the case”). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the case is under the provisions of the UAPA also. He would submit that by virtue of Section 43D of the UAPA, the period of detention given under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) has been extended. From 15 days, it has been extended to 30 days and for 60 days or 90 days, it has been maintained as 90 days. But, he would submit that the extension of time for investigation beyond 90 days can only be granted by the court, under the proviso to Section 43D (2) of the UAPA. It is argued that in the instant case, the magistrate has extended the period from 90 days up to 180 days and has granted 90 days extra time for completion of investigation, which is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel has also raised following points in his submission:- (i) The time for completion of investigation may be extended beyond 90 days by the court only. The court may be either special court constituted under Section 11 or under Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (“NIA Act”) or in the absence of any special court, the court of session under Section 22 (3) of the NIA Act. (ii) The time for completion of investigation may not be extended by the magistrate under the UAPA. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the principles of law, as laid down in the cases of Bikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616 , Sadique and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 6 SCC 339 , State of West Bengal Vs. Jayeeta Das, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 550 and in the matter of Pratik Bhowmik, 2022 SCC Online Cal. 4286. 5. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616 , Sadique and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 6 SCC 339 , State of West Bengal Vs. Jayeeta Das, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 550 and in the matter of Pratik Bhowmik, 2022 SCC Online Cal. 4286. 5. In the case of Bikramjit Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of Section 43 D (2) (b) of the UAPA and observed as follows:- “26. Before the NIA Act was enacted, offences under the UAPA were of two kinds — those with a maximum imprisonment of over 7 years, and those with a maximum imprisonment of 7 years and under. Under the Code as applicable to offences against other laws, offences having a maximum sentence of 7 years and under are triable by the Magistrate's courts, whereas offences having a maximum sentence of above 7 years are triable by Courts of Session. This scheme has been completely done away with by the NIA Act, 2008 as all Scheduled Offences i.e. all offences under the UAPA, whether investigated by the National Investigation Agency or by the investigating agencies of the State Government, are to be tried exclusively by Special Courts set up under that Act. In the absence of any designated court by notification issued by either the Central Government or the State Government, the fallback is upon the Court of Session alone. Thus, under the aforesaid scheme what becomes clear is that so far as all offences under the UAPA are concerned, the Magistrate's jurisdiction to extend time under the first proviso in Section 43-D(2)(b) is non-existent, “the Court” being either a Sessions Court, in the absence of a notification specifying a Special Court, or the Special Court itself. The impugned judgment in arriving at the contrary conclusion is incorrect as it has missed Section 22(2) read with Section 13 of the NIA Act. Also, the impugned judgment has missed Section 16(1) of the NIA Act which states that a Special Court may take cognizance of any offence without the accused being committed to it for trial, inter alia, upon a police report of such facts.” (emphasis supplied) 6. Also, the impugned judgment has missed Section 16(1) of the NIA Act which states that a Special Court may take cognizance of any offence without the accused being committed to it for trial, inter alia, upon a police report of such facts.” (emphasis supplied) 6. In the case of Sadique (supra) also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court followed the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Bikramjit Singh (supra) and observed that “consequently, insofar as “extension of time to complete investigation” is concerned, the magistrate would not be competent to consider request and the only competent authority to consider such request would be the court as specified in the proviso to Section 43 D (2) (b) of UAPA.” 7. In the case of Jayeeta Das (supra) also the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “in view of the definition of the ‘Court’ provided under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA, the jurisdictional Magistrate would also be clothed with the jurisdiction to deal with the remand of the accused albeit for a period of 90 days only because an express order of the Sessions Court or the Special Court, as the case may be, authorising remand beyond such period would be required by virtue of Section 43D(2) of UAPA.” 8. In the case of Pratik Bhowmik (supra), the issue has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and in para 35, the principles have been summed up as follows:- “35. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we hold as follows:— (i) Once offences under UAPA are added to a case, Magistrate is denuded of his power to remand in terms of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as amended in UAPA) beyond a period of 30 days; (ii) Thereafter, the accused must be produced before the Special Court constituted under Section 11 or 22 of the NIA Act (as the case may be) for the purposes of remand as well as extension of the period of remand in terms of proviso to Section 43D(2) of the UAPA; (iii) In the absence of a Special Court constituted as aforesaid, Court of Sessions shall exercise all powers and jurisdiction of the Special Court in terms of Section 22(3) of the NIA Act including the power to remand as well as the power to extend the period of remand in terms of proviso to Section 43D(2) of the Act.” 9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would submit that the impugned order is in accordance with law; it does not warrant any interference; the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee has all powers of remand and committal. Learned counsel would submit that the extension of time under Section 43 D (2) (b) of UAPA is at a pre-cognizance stage, therefore, the magistrate may extend the time for completion of investigation. 10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has referred to the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2022) 6 SCC 308 . In the case Naser (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “57. We have already held that the continuance of the investigation by ATS, Nanded in terms of Section 6(7) of the NIA Act, till the investigation had been taken up by NIA, Mumbai, was legitimate. A reading of Section 10 of the NIA Act indicates that there is no embargo on the State Investigating Agency to investigate a Scheduled Offence, which would include offences under the UAPA. Consequently, till the investigation was taken up by NIA, Mumbai, ATS, Nanded was acting within jurisdiction in investigating the offence and filing the charge-sheet in the present case. Both of these took place prior to 8-12-2016, which is when the investigation was handed over to NIA, Mumbai. Admittedly, once NIA, Mumbai took up the investigation, the Special Court designated under Section 11 of the NIA Act would have sole jurisdiction to try the case. In the present case, NIA, Mumbai took up the investigation only on 8-12-2016 after receiving the records from ATS, Nanded, and thereupon it filed an application for transfer of the case from the ASJ, Nanded to NIA Special Court, Mumbai constituted under Section 11 of the NIA Act. 58. However, till NIA, Mumbai took over the investigation, jurisdiction would reside with a court which ordinarily had it. The Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred by Section 11 read with Section 185CrPC issued a Notification dated 26-8-2016 designating the CJM, Nanded as the remand court and the ASJ, Nanded as a Special Court for the trial of cases filed by ATS, Nanded. There is no challenge to the Notification dated 26-8-2016. The Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred by Section 11 read with Section 185CrPC issued a Notification dated 26-8-2016 designating the CJM, Nanded as the remand court and the ASJ, Nanded as a Special Court for the trial of cases filed by ATS, Nanded. There is no challenge to the Notification dated 26-8-2016. In this backdrop, the CJM, Nanded has been designated as a court of remand and the ASJ, Nanded as a Special Court under the CrPC for the trial of cases filed by ATS, Nanded. Hence, they both had the jurisdiction to entertain the present case under the UAPA till NIA, Mumbai took over the investigation on 8-12-2016, and sought a transfer of the case to NIA Special Court at Mumbai constituted under Section 11 of the NIA Act.” 11. Learned State counsel would submit that the impugned order is in accordance with law. 12. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the parties that no special court has been notified under Section 22 of the NIA Act. However, a special court has been notified under Section 11 of the NIA Act for whole of the State of Uttarakhand vide notification No. S.O.4155 (E) dated 18.11.2019 – The relevant office memorandum of the Ministry of Home Affairs is as below:- NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY Ministry of Home Affairs CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003 No.62/Legal/ Spl. Court/Judge/NIA/Uttarakhand-15071 Dated: Nov., 2019 Office Memorandum In reference to the letter No. 7068/XI-e-2/Admin. A/2010 dated 01.11.2019 of the Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section (1) of section 11 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), has designated the Court of Session, Dehradun, as the “Special Court” for the trial of Scheduled Offences investigated by the National Investigation Agency. Name of the Special Court notified vide Gazette Notification No. Jurisdiction of the Special Court The Court of Session, Dehradun, vide notification No. S.O. 4155 (E), dated 18.11.2019 Throughout the State of Uttarakhand 02. The notification has been published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3(ii), vide S.O. 4155 (E), dated 18.11.2019 (a copy of the Gazette notification is enclosed for reference). (ANIL SHUKLA, IPS) Inspector General (Legal) Tel:011-24367964 E-mail: anilshukla.nia@gov.in Copy to: 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital-263002. 2. DIG, Branch Office Lucknow. 3. Office order file.” 13. The notification has been published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3(ii), vide S.O. 4155 (E), dated 18.11.2019 (a copy of the Gazette notification is enclosed for reference). (ANIL SHUKLA, IPS) Inspector General (Legal) Tel:011-24367964 E-mail: anilshukla.nia@gov.in Copy to: 1. The Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital-263002. 2. DIG, Branch Office Lucknow. 3. Office order file.” 13. Before the Court proceeds further a few provisions of law may be noted. Section 2 (1) (d) of the UAPA defines court as follows:- “2. Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.- (a)……………………………………………………………… (b)……………………………………………………………… (c)……………………………………………………………… (d) “court” means a criminal court having jurisdiction, under the Code, to try offences under this Act and includes a Special Court constituted under Section 11 or under Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.” 14. Section 43D (2) of UAPA makes certain modification in Section 167 of the Code in their application to UAPA. The Section 43 D read as follows:- “43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly. (2) Section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act subject to the modification that in sub-section (2),— (a) the references to “fifteen days”, “ninety days” and “sixty days”, wherever they occur, shall be construed as references to “thirty days”, “ninety days” and “ninety days” respectively; and (b) after the proviso, the following provisos shall be inserted, namely:— “Provided further that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of ninety days, the Court may if it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of ninety days, extend the said period up to one hundred and eighty days: Provided also that if the police officer making the investigation under this Act, requests, for the purposes of investigation, for police custody from judicial custody of any person in judicial custody, he shall file an affidavit stating the reasons for doing so and shall also explain the delay, if any, for requesting such police custody.” 15. The NIA Act has been created to constitute “an investigation agency at the national level to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of State, friendly relations with foreign States and offences under Acts enacted to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of the United Nations, its agencies and other international organizations and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. 16. The NIA Act also makes certain provisions with regard to cognizance and trial. Scheduled Offence and Special Court have been defined under Sections 2 (1) (g) and 2 (1) (h) of the NIA Act as follows:- “2.Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.- (a)…………………………………………………… (b)………………………………………………..…. 16. The NIA Act also makes certain provisions with regard to cognizance and trial. Scheduled Offence and Special Court have been defined under Sections 2 (1) (g) and 2 (1) (h) of the NIA Act as follows:- “2.Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.- (a)…………………………………………………… (b)………………………………………………..…. ……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………… (g) “Scheduled Offence” means an offence specified in the Schedule; (h) “Special Court” means a Court of Sessions designated as Special Court under Section 11 or, as the case may be, under Section 22;” 17. Section 6 of the NIA Act deals with the investigation of scheduled offences. According to it, as soon as, an FIR under Section 154 of the Code is received at the police station relating to any scheduled offence, a report is to be sent to the State Government by the Official In-charge of the police station. Such report is further forwarded to the Central Government. Central Government may notify that such offence may be investigated by National Investigation Agency (“the Agency”). Until the Agency takes on investigation, the officer in-charge of the police station shall continue the investigation. There are other related provisions in this section as well. 18. Section 10 of the NIA Act is very important. It reads as follows:- “10. Power of State Government to investigate Scheduled Offences.- Save as otherwise provided in this Act, nothing contained in this Act shall affect the powers of the State Government to investigate and prosecute any Scheduled Offence or other offences under any law for the time being in force.” 19. Under Sections 11 and 22 of the NIA Act, special courts are created. Under Section 11, such special courts are created by the Central Government, whereas, under Section 22, such special courts are created by the State Government. 20. Section 22 needs reference. It is as follows:- “22. Power of State Government to designate Court of Session as Special Courts.- (1) The State Government may designate one or more Courts of Session as Special Courts for the trial of offences under any or all the enactments specified in the Schedule. 20. Section 22 needs reference. It is as follows:- “22. Power of State Government to designate Court of Session as Special Courts.- (1) The State Government may designate one or more Courts of Session as Special Courts for the trial of offences under any or all the enactments specified in the Schedule. (2) The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the Special Courts designated by the State Government under sub-section (1) and shall have effect subject to the following modifications, namely- (i) references to “Central Government” in Sections 11 and 15 shall be construed as references to State Government; (ii) reference to “Agency” in sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall be construed as a reference to the “investigation agency of the State Government”; (iii) reference to “Attorney-General for India” in sub-section (3) of Section 13 shall be construed as reference to “Advocate-General of the State”. (3) The jurisdiction conferred by this Act on a Special Court shall, until a Special Court is designated by the State Government under sub-section (1) in the case of any offence punishable under this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, be exercised by the Court of Session of the division in which such offence has been committed and it shall have all the powers and follow the procedure provided under this Chapter. (4) On and from the date when the Special Court is designated by the State Government the trial of any offence investigated by the State Government under the provisions of this Act, which would have been required to be held before the Special Court, shall stand transferred to that Court on the date on which it is designated.” 21. According to Section 16 of the NIA Act, a special court can take cognizance of offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. 22. A bare reading of the above provisions makes it abundantly clear that a scheduled offence under UAPA, shall continue to be investigated by the official In-charge of the police station until such investigation is taken over by the Agency. If State Police continues investigation and files charge sheet within stipulated time, there is no question of extension of time for completion of investigation under Section 43 D (2) of UAPA. 23. If State Police continues investigation and files charge sheet within stipulated time, there is no question of extension of time for completion of investigation under Section 43 D (2) of UAPA. 23. The sole question, which requires determination in the instant revision, is the interpretation of the word “court” as used under Section 43 D (2) of UAPA. What is to be determined is as to whether the word “court” would include the magistrate? 24. In the instant case, by the impugned order, the magistrate has extended the period of completion of investigation beyond 90 days for further period of 90 days. The question is whether the magistrate can do it? This is a short question. 25. In the case Bikramjit Singh (supra), some of the relevant facts were as follows:- (i) The accused were arrested on 22.11.2018. The 90 days period in custody was to expire on 21.02.2019. (ii) The Sub Divisional Magistrate had extended time from 90 days to 180 days under Section 43 D (2) of UAPA on 13.02.2019. (iii) On 25.02.2019, an application for default bail was rejected on the ground that time to complete investigation has already been extended. (iv) The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana finally dismissed the application for default bail and held that the magistrate has power under the Code read with the provisions of UAPA to extend the period of investigation up to 180 days. This finding of the Hon’ble High Court was challenged in the case of Bikramjit Singh (supra), one of the grounds were that if a special court is created under UAPA, it was a special court alone which had exclusive jurisdiction to extend the period of 90 days to 180 days under Section 43 D (2) (b) of UAPA. (v) In the State of Punjab, special courts were created under Section 22 of the NIA Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered various provisions of UAPA and NIA Act and observed as quoted hereinabove. At the cost of repetition what the Hon’ble Supreme Court held is as follows. (v) In the State of Punjab, special courts were created under Section 22 of the NIA Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered various provisions of UAPA and NIA Act and observed as quoted hereinabove. At the cost of repetition what the Hon’ble Supreme Court held is as follows. “Thus, under the aforesaid scheme what becomes clear is that so far as all offences under Section UAPA are concerned, the magistrate’s jurisdiction to extend time under the first proviso in 43 D (2) (b) of UAPA is nonexistent, “the court” being as the sessions court, in the absence of notification specifying it a special court, or the special court itself.” 26. In the case of Naser (supra). In that case, the events were as follows:- (i) On 14.07.2016, FIR under the provisions of IPC and UAPA was registered. (ii) On 26.08.2016, the Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 11 read with Section 185 of the Code, designated CJM, Nanded as court of remand and the court of Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”) Nanded as special court to try cases filed by ATS Nanded. The matter was being investigated by ATS. (iii) On 07.10.2016, charge sheet submitted by ATS, on which cognizance was taken by the CJM Nanded and on 18.10.2016, the case was committed to the court of ASJ, Nanded for trial. (iv) In between, on 08.09.2016, the Union Government directed NIA to take over further investigation. (v) On 23.11.2016, NIA Mumbai informed ATS Nanded of having taken over investigation. 27. Under these facts and circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles, as quoted hereinabove. The NIA had never taken over the cognizance up till the charge sheet was filed in that case. There was no question of extension of time under Section 43 D (2) of UAPA. 28. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Naser (supra), held that the principle enunciated in the case of Bikramjit Singh (supra) would not apply in that case since, there existed no special court under Section 22 of the NIA Act (since the investigation was being conducted by the ATS Nanded, which had jurisdiction over the case). 29. In the instant matter, the magistrate was dealing with the offence under UAPA. The matter was being investigated by the State Police. 30. 29. In the instant matter, the magistrate was dealing with the offence under UAPA. The matter was being investigated by the State Police. 30. The facts of the instant case are squarely covered by the principles of law, laid down in the case of Bikramjit Singh (supra). The magistrate cannot extend time under Section 43 D (2) (b) of the UAPA. It can be extended by the “court” only. The “court” means either special court or court of session. 31. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and it deserves to be set aside. 32. The impugned order dated 20.03.2024 is set aside. 33. The revision is allowed accordingly.