1. Petitioner herein seeks quashment of criminal proceedings purporting to have been initiated by concerned police which ultimately culminated in seizure/attachment of her residential house situated at Saderbal, Srinagar wherefrom she has reportedly been driven out after the seizure.

2. It appears that way back in 2007 her husband, namely, Gulam Hassan Mir was arrested on information and found to be an active militant of Hizb-ul-Mujahiddin (a militant organization) who is reported to have informed his interrogators that he had constructed a house in the name of his wife at Saderbal, Sriangar out of the money which he got and collected by terrorist activities whereupon concerned police while invoking the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004 seized the house after Deputy Commissioners furnishing a questionnaire to the petitioner herein regarding sources from where she constructed the same.

3. Grounds pleaded to assail the proceedings as projected by petitioners counsel during course of arguments are that in the first instance the house belonged to and was constructed by petitioner and not her husband and, as such, could not have been seized by concerned police and, secondly, that the requisite procedural steps for its attachment / seizure not having been taken the seizure was illegal. In response Mr. Rathore appearing for other side has contended that having been found to have been constructed out of the proceeds of militancy the house was rightly seized by police under the aforesaid Act and, as such, proceedings could not be assailed.

4. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. Before proceeding ahead, it would be appropriate to notice that from the case diaries furnished in the matter it transpires that petitioners husband, namely, Gulam Hassan, was arrested on June 24, 2007 on a tip off by some source who during course of interrogation is reported to have divulged that the house under reference was constructed by him in the name of his wife, the present petitioner, out of money collected by him during terrorist activities which persuaded concerned Investigating Officer to initiate proceedings under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004 and proceeding thereunder he ultimately seized / attached the house throwing out the petitioner and her family therefrom.

5. In order to assess the challenge put forth to the process of seizure etc. it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions of the Act. After defining the relevant terms / expressions in Section 2(d), (e), (g), (h) and (k) as follows:

"(d) "Court" means a Criminal Court having jurisdiction, under the Code, to try offences under this Act.

(e) "Designated Authority" means such officer of the Central Government not below the rank of Joint Secretary to that Government, or such officer of the State Government not below the rank of Secretary to that Government, as the case may be, as may be specified by the Central Government or the State Government, by a notification published in the Official Gazette;

(g) "proceeds of terrorism" means all kinds of properties which have been derived or obtained from commission of any terrorist act or have been acquired through funds traceable to a terrorist act, irrespective of person in whose name such proceeds are standing or in whose possession they are found, and includes any property which is being used, or is intended to be used, for the purpose of a terrorist organization;

(h) "property" means property and assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable; tangible or intangible and deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, and includes cash and bank account; and

(k) "terrorist act" has the meaning assigned to it in Sec. 15, and the expressions "terrorism" and "terrorist" shall be construed accordingly;

The Act provides for forfeiture of proceeds of terrorism in Chapter V containing Sections 24 to 34 with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document