IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of clear evidence linking assets to proceeds of terrorism for lawful attachment under the UA(P)A.

JUDGMENT :

(K.R. Surana, J.)

Heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. G.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the sole respondent. With the permission of the Court, Mr. R.K. D. Choudhury, learned DSGI has also made his submissions.

2) The movable and immovable properties of the appellant i.e. the Association for Extensive Growers Initiative Service (AEGIS for short) was attached by the Chief Investigation Officer of NIA Case No. 10/2010, vide Memorandum of Attachment dated 11.11.2011 (Ext.94). Consequently, the order of attachment dated 11.11.2011 (Ext.95) was also made by the same authority. Thereafter, by an order under No. 11034/20/2010-IS-VII(IV) dated 29.12.2011 (Ext.184) was issued by Sri Dharmendra Sharma, Joint Secretary (IS-I), Govt. of India, MHA & Designated Authority, thereby confirming the order of attachment under section 25 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [hereinafter referred to as ‘UA(P)A” for short]. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 25(6) of the UA(P)A.

3) It would be appropriate to mention herein that this appeal was listed together with Crl. Appeal nos. 169/2016, 262/ 2016, 263/2016, 264/2016, 265/2016, 289/2016, 291/2016, 295/2016, 299/ 2016, Crl.A.113/2017, 115/2017 and 145/2017. With the consent of the learned senior counsel for the appellant as well as the learned senior counsel for the sole respondent, this appeal was heard analogously with the other criminal appeals.

Submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant:

4) The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that AEGIS was carrying out legitimate business of food processing and had invested a huge amount of money for setting up a pineapple processing plant, which partly financed by way of long term assistance of Rs.28.00 lakh, provided by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture and that the project was also partly financed by the Ministry of Food Processing by way of providing grant of Rs.56.00 lakh. The said project was also financed by the Imphal Urban Cooperative Bank (IUCB for short). Accordingly, it was submitted that the attachment of assets of the respondent was not sustainable on facts and in law.

Submissions by the learned senior counsel for respondent:

5) Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondent has questioned the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that no appeal was preferred after the attachment order was passed and that the present appeal was belatedly filed.

6) The learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted that the detailed investigation was done by the NIA and in course of investigation it was found that AEGIS was a front organisation of United National Liberation Army (hereinafter referred to as UNLF for short). Accordingly, the Chief Investigating Officer, i.e. Sri S.P. Pani, who was examined as PW-84 in the connected criminal appeals, who was having the statutory power under section 25(1) of the UA(P)A to conduct search and to make seizure of property, on 11.11.2010, had attached the assets of AEGIS (appellant), as the said assets was out of the proceeds of terrorism. Consequently, the order of attachment was also made on 11.11.2010. A copy of above is stated to have been served on Secretary of AEGIS, namely, N. Bomi Singh (since deceased), who is arrayed as accused no. 23 in Special NIA Case No.1/2010.

7) It has been submitted that under section 25(2) of the UA(P)A, the Investigating Officer is required to inform the Designated Authority with 48 hours of such seizure and attachment. Under section 25(3), the Designated Authority before whom the seized property is produced is required to either confirm or revoke the order of seizure or attachment within the time prescribed after providing an opportunity to the person concerned of making a representation.

8) It is