A special NIA court in Mumbai instructed the investigation agency to file its closure report in the threat case against Union Minister Nitin Gadkari with the designated court in Nagpur, due to jurisdictional concerns. The directive shifts the responsibility for concluding the case to the Nagpur court, where the matter falls under proper legal authority.
Mumbai: A special court of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in Mumbai directed the central agency to submit its closure report to a designated court in Nagpur, citing jurisdictional concerns. The report relates to a case involving extortion calls made to Union Minister Nitin Gadkari, where the accused allegedly demanded Rs. 100 crore as protection money.
The NIA initially submitted the closure report to the special court in Mumbai, citing insufficient evidence to continue the case against Jayesh Pujari, who is accused of making these calls in January and March 2023. However, the Mumbai court declined to accept the report, stating it lacked the jurisdiction and directed the NIA to submit it to the Nagpur court, where the trial against Pujari is ongoing.
Read Also: Bhima Koregaon riots: Bombay High Court grants bail to Mahesh Raut
The case originally registered at Dhantoli police station in Nagpur, where the accused was charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including sections 385, 387, 506(2), and 507, related to extortion and criminal intimidation.
The case took a significant turn when Pujari allegedly made a second call on March 21, 2023, to the Public Relations Officer of Nitin Gadkari, demanding an additional Rs.10 crore and threatening a bomb blast. In response to this renewed threat, a new FIR was filed, and the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) applied against him.
The Ministry of Home Affairs subsequently transferred the case to the NIA on July 13, 2024, leading to the registration of an FIR in Mumbai. The NIA sought to streamline the proceedings by filing an application to transfer the Nagpur case to Mumbai. However, on July 18, 2024, the Nagpur court denied this request, reaffirming its jurisdiction over the case since the alleged offense occurred within its territorial boundaries.
The NIA later appealed to the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court but eventually withdrew it. The agency initially argued that the NIA court in Mumbai jurisdiction to handle the case, even though a chargesheet had already been filed in Nagpur.
However, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti of the Mumbai NIA court identified several jurisdictional and procedural inconsistencies in the agency’s actions. Judge Lahoti pointed out that two FIRs related to extortion were registered at the Dhantoli police station, and the case had not been transferred to Mumbai. He emphasized that the trial was still being conducted in the Nagpur court, where the accused had not been produced in Mumbai, and the only document submitted to the Mumbai court was the FIR registered by the NIA.
Judge Lahoti remarked,
“There cannot be two simultaneous proceedings against the accused in two different courts for the same crime number based on the same facts.”
He concluded that merely filing a copy of the FIR in Mumbai for informational purposes was insufficient.
The judge noted,
“Nothing is pending before this court in this matter; this court, therefore, has neither jurisdiction nor has a chargesheet been filed,”
Judge Lahoti also remarked while directing the NIA to submit its closure report to the “proper forum” in Nagpur.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
