JUDGMENT & ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Sathyanarayana, learned PP appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1. None appears on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. It has been brought to the attention of this Court that the respondent no. 2 had expired, however there is no necessity for substituting him as he was impleaded only in his official capacity. 3. The petitioner herein, by way of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution has challenged the Notification dated 06.11.2015, as well as sought for quashing of RC-1/16 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, NIA, Nagaland. 4. It is relevant to take note of that the Notification dated 06.11.2015 challenged in the instant proceedings is a Notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, whereby in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (a) of Sub-section 1 of Section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1967), the Central Government added the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang) [NSCN(K)] and all its formations and front organizations as terrorist organization in the First Schedule in the said Act of 1967. Mr. S. Borgohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein would not like to pursue the challenge to the Notification dated 06.11.2015. He submitted that the petitioner herein had been unnecessarily made an accused in RC-1/16; in as much as a reading of Section 39 and 40 of the Act of 1967 no case is made out against the petitioner. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sathyanarayana, the learned PP appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 submitted that from the materials on record and more particularly a reading of the Charge-sheet, it will show that a case is made out against the petitioner. He further submitted that taking into account the allegations contained in the Charge-sheet, the question of quashing the Charge-sheet as regards the petitioner, does not arise as per the settled principles of law. 6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have given my anxious consideration. 7. He further submitted that taking into account the allegations contained in the Charge-sheet, the question of quashing the Charge-sheet as regards the petitioner, does not arise as per the settled principles of law. 6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have given my anxious consideration. 7. At the outset, this Court finds it relevant to observe that as the petitioner had given up his challenge to the impugned Notification dated 06.11.2015, there is, therefore, no requirement of dealing with the legality or validity of the said Notification dated 06.11.2015. 8. This Court had taken note of an Order passed by the learned Special Judge dated 20.07.2018 in RC-1/16 NIA. A perusal of the said Order shows that the learned Special Judge NIA (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) had framed charges under Sections 39 and 40 of the Act of 1967 against the accused: A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A11, A12 and A13, and the said accused who were present in the Court pleaded not guilty. However, as regards the accused/A4, who is the petitioner and accused/A- 10, the learned Trial Court had deferred the consideration of the charge to 09.08.2018. The learned Trial Court further fixed 09.08.2018 for evidence of the prosecution. A perusal of the said Order, therefore, shows that the learned Trial Court have proceeded to the next stage, i.e., to the stage of Section 231 of the Code without completing the entire exercise as required under Sections 227 and 228 in respect to the two accused. The manner in which the learned Trial Court proceeded appears to be irregular without splitting the trial. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that from the impugned Order dated 20.07.2018, it prima facie appears that the learned Trial Court had already pre-judged that the charges would be framed against the petitioner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to seek his rights for discharge as mandated under Section 227. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner had not yet been supplied the copies as is required under Section 207 of the Code. 10. This Court has also heard the learned PP, NIA who submits that the copies which are required to be supplied to the petitioner in terms with Section 207 would be supplied to the petitioner. 11. 10. This Court has also heard the learned PP, NIA who submits that the copies which are required to be supplied to the petitioner in terms with Section 207 would be supplied to the petitioner. 11. This Court has given an anxious consideration to the above aspect, more particularly about the non-compliance to Section 207 of the Code as well as to the irregularity in the Order dated 20.07.2018. In addition to that it is also very pertinent to take note of that a perusal of the records of the instant writ proceedings shows that vide Order dated 06.08.2018, the proceedings of RC-1/16 pending before the learned Trial Court was suspended in so far as the petitioner is concerned and the said Interim Order has been extended from time to time. The result of the interim Order passed by this Court had permitted the trial to proceed against all other accused sans petitioner. This Court had enquired with Mr. Sathyanarayana, the learned PP appearing on behalf of the NIA as to what is the present stage of the trial. He submitted that four prosecution witnesses have already been examined till date and there has been an apparent delay due to various challenges. 12. In the backdrop of the above, this Court had duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the scanned copy of the LCR, available on record. From the materials on records and more particularly upon perusal of the Charge-sheet, being RC- 1/16 this Court is of the opinion, it is not a fit case for quashing of the said Charge-sheet as against the petitioner in as much as a perusal of the Charge-sheet reflects that there are allegations in the Charge-sheet against the petitioner and these allegations cannot be quashed in the present proceedings. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction or even the supervisory jurisdiction to quash the Charge-sheet being RC-1/16 in so far as the petitioner is concerned, which has been impugned in the instant proceedings. 13. Under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction or even the supervisory jurisdiction to quash the Charge-sheet being RC-1/16 in so far as the petitioner is concerned, which has been impugned in the instant proceedings. 13. As observed herein above, the Order dated 20.07.2018 of the learned Trial Court appears to be irregular in as much as the learned Trial Court has proceeded to the stage of Section 231 of the Code against other accuseds without completing the requirement in terms of Section 227 and 228 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The Interim Order passed by this Court whereby the proceedings was stayed in so far as the petitioner was concerned had further breached the gap between the trial of the petitioner with that of the trial of the other accused as already four prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Accordingly, it is required that the breaching of the gap be bridged by appropriate orders. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that the petitioner herein has a right to seek discharge under Section 227 of the Code and this right cannot be taken away without following the due process. In that view of the matter, this Court, therefore disposes of the instant proceedings with the following observations and directions: i) This Court is not inclined to quash the RC-1/16 pending before the learned Trial Court as against the petitioner for the reasons above mentioned. ii) The respondent no. 1 is directed to file all the copies which are required in terms with Section 207 of the Code before the learned Trial Court on or before 22.04.2025. The petitioner thereupon shall receive those copies from the learned Trial Court on or before 25.04.2025. The learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders reflecting in its records about filing of the copies by the respondent no. 1 and receiving of the copies by the petitioner as per the directions given hereinabove. iii) This Court further directs the learned Trial Court to stall the progress of the trial in RC-1/16 till 05.05.2025, on which date the learned Trial Court shall take up for consideration as to whether any charge is required to be framed as against the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein is given liberty to file a Discharge Application on any date prior to 05.05.2025 before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner herein is given liberty to file a Discharge Application on any date prior to 05.05.2025 before the learned Trial Court. iv) If on the basis of the liberty given above, the petitioner files the application seeking discharge, the learned Trial Court shall decide the same and basing upon the said decision proceed with the trial in accordance with law. v) This Court further finds it relevant to observe taking into account that the trial had progressed in absence of the petitioner; and in the circumstances charges are framed against the petitioner, the learned Trial Court shall recall the witnesses of the prosecution who have already been examined and give due opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witnesses. It is made clear that the said witnesses who have already been examined would not be permitted to adduce further evidence. vi) This Court observes that the observations made in the instant Order as well as the Order dated 20.07.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court shall not influence the learned Trial Court in deciding the application for discharge if so filed by the petitioner or as to whether charge is required to be framed against the petitioner. The learned Trial Court shall decide the same as per the extant of law. vii) All contentions raised in the instant writ petition are open to be raised by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court except the challenge to the Notification dated 06.11.2015. viii) The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the proceedings after deciding the application for discharge (if filed by the petitioner) and after deciding whether charge is required to be framed against the petitioner. ix) All Interim Orders in the present proceedings stand vacated.