Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 24: In a significant ruling on the scope of property attachment under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Special Court under the NIA Act at Jammu has held that property which does not belong to an accused cannot be attached under Section 33 of the UAPA, while rejecting the National Investigation Agency's plea to attach a Srinagar house in the Shala Kadal terror case.
Special Judge under the NIA Act Prem Sagar rejected the NIA application seeking attachment of a residential house measuring six marlas and 116 square feet under Survey No. 2029 at Estate Zoonimar, Srinagar, which stands registered in the name of Shameema, mother of accused Ahran Rasool Dar alias Tota.
The application was filed under Section 33(1) of the UAPA in case RC-01/2024/NIA/JMU, arising out of a case registered at Police Station Shaheed Ganj, Srinagar, concerning the killing of two non-locals at Shala Kadal, Srinagar. The order records that charges have been framed against the accused under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC, Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the UAPA and Sections 7/27 of the Arms Act, and the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence.
The NIA contended that though the property was registered in the name of Dar's mother, the house had allegedly been used for keeping the weapon of offence and planning the attack.
According to the agency, Dar allegedly kept the weapon inside the house, photographed it on a green-golden coloured mat and sent the photograph to co-accused Adil Manzoor Langoo through his mobile phone. The order further records that the mat was later seized from Dar's house and a CFSL Chandigarh report found similarities between the photographed material and the seized exhibits. The mobile phone allegedly used for sending the photograph was also recovered from Dar, while the weapon was stated to have been recovered from the house of co-accused Langoo.
Appearing for the NIA, SPP K.S. Pathania, along with PP Chandan Kumar Singh and PP Ashwani Verma, pressed for attachment of the property during the pendency of the trial. The accused was proceeded against ex parte after the court recorded that notice had been served upon him in jail but he did not appear.
The prosecution argued that the property had allegedly been used for unlawful activities and referred to the definition of "proceeds of terrorism" under the UAPA. It also relied upon a judgment of the Madras High Court concerning the scope of Section 33.
The Special Court, however, examined Section 33 and observed that during the trial of a person accused of offences under Chapters IV or VI of the UAPA, the court may order attachment of movable or immovable property belonging to the accused.
The court noted that there was nothing on record to show that the property belonged to Ahran Rasool Dar, whereas the house stood in the name of his mother Shameema, who was not an accused in RC-01/2024/NIA/JMU.
"From the available record," the court held, the contentions raised by the NIA were not well founded in light of the applicable legal provisions.
Consequently, the Special Judge held the NIA application to be "devoid of any merit" and rejected the plea for attachment of the house.
(JNF) |
