Back
TASHI RABSTAN, PUNEET GUPTA
Mohammad Amin Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Commissioner Kashmir – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appeal is preferred against order dated 17.12.2022, passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla (NIA Court) and order dated 29.08.2021 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir. The proceedings initiated by the police regarding the seizure are also questioned in appeal. In FIR No. 57/2020 filed under Sections 13, 16, 18, 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967 and 8/21 NDPS Act and 7/25 Arms Act and registered with Police Station, Karnah the vehicle bearing No. JK01AJ/0219 has been seized during the course of investigation. Later on, respondent-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir has confirmed the order of seizure of the vehicle. The appeal was filed against the order dated 29.08.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner (Designated Authority). The appeal filed before the NIA Court stands dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2022. The appellate court confirmed the order of Designated Authority.
2. The present appeal is filed against both the aforesaid orders.
3. The respondents have appeared in the appeal and contested the same.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that Section 25 of UA (P) Act has not been comp
Procedural lapses in seizure under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act do not invalidate the action if justified by the circumstances surrounding the case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of prescribed procedures and the need for decisions to be made in accordance with the statutory provisions, particularly in th....
The court affirmed the seizure of funds under the UAPA, establishing that the funds were proceeds of terrorism linked to extortion activities by a terrorist organization.
Confiscation of vehicles under the NDPS Act must follow the prescribed procedural safeguards; failure to provide a hearing renders the order illegal.
The ownership of a vehicle seized under NDPS Act must be respected if the owner proves lack of knowledge of its illegal use; interim custody can be granted subject to conditions.
A registered owner of a vehicle seized in connection with a narcotics offence, who is not an accused, is entitled to interim custody of the vehicle, subject to meeting certain conditions to ensure co....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
