JUDGMENT

K. Venkataswami, J.-This appeal preferred under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "TADA") challenges the judgment and order of the learned Designated Judge (TADA), Jamnagar dated July 1, 1994.

2. The learned Designated Judge confirmed an order of attachment of seven vessels/ships under Section 7A of TADA pending further investigation in the matter.

3. At the outset we would like to make it clear that we do not propose to deal with the matter either in detail or to give a final decision in this matter in view of the fact that when the judgment under appeal was made the matter was under the investigation stage only. In our view any opinion expressed at this stage might cause prejudice to either party and that is the reason for not going into the matter in detail or giving any final decision. Briefly stated the facts are as under :

4. In the Kalyanpur Police Station Crime Register No. 62/93 related to a case booked for the offences punishable under sections 121,121A, 122, 34 IPC and 25(1)(A)(D), 25(1)(A(2), 25 (1) AA, 25(A)(B), 25(A)(F) of the Arms Act, Section 20 of Wireless Telegraph Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. In the course of investigation one diary of Hamir Sajan was found and it contained certain financial transactions relating to one Haji Haji Ismail for purchasing the ships in question. The District Supreintendent of Police attached those ships invoking powers under Section 7A of TADA. A report application No. 1/93 was filed before the learned Designated Judge seeking confirmation of attachment.

5. The appellants claiming to be the owners of the ships in question objected to the attachment and sought revocation of such attachment before the learned Designated Judge.

6. It was argued before the learned Designated Judge that Section 7A of TADA came into force on and form 22.5.1993 and the purchases of all the ships having taken place well before that date, the provisions of TADA cannot be invoked. It was also contended that none of the persons objecting (claiming to be the owners) the attachment had ever been arrested either under the provisions of Customs Act or under TADA and hence prima facie Section 7A of TADA has no application. It was further contended that to invoke Section 7A of TADA there should be knowledge or reasons to believe that properties attached are involved in terrorist activities and that requirement was not satisfied on the facts of the case.

7. Before the learned Designated Judge, the Designated Public Prosecutor after narrating the facts relating to the purchase of the seven ships in question contended that on prima facie case being made out and entertaining reason to believe that the property in question falls within the mischief of Section 7A attachment in question was made and that further inquiry/investigation was still going on regarding all the seven ships to conclusively find as to whether they were involved in smuggling activities or not. It was admitted that since some of the persons were absconding and some of others had left the district therefore, at that stage, attachment could not be revoked and he prayed for confirmation of the order of attachment.

8. The learned Designated Judge bearing in mind that the investigation was still going on has given only a prima facie finding and on being satisfied with the prima facie case confirmed the attachment by the judgment under appeal.

9. The learned Designated Judge found that the main accused was one Haji Haji Ismail and he was doing the landing activities of gold and silver articles which are smuggled goods and in order to see that Government authorities do not cause any hurdles to him in carrying out such activities he was possessing automatic rifles, foreign made pistols and other latest and scientific means of communications and they were already attached and Hamir Sajan and other three persons were arrested. Though