Back
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
G. M. Bhat, S/o Jalaluddin Bhat – Appellant
Versus
State of JK through SHO Police Station Udhampur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, whereby they have called in question the impugned orders dated 30.06.2008, 17.11.2008 and 30.06.2009 passed by respondent No.2 and 3 i.e., Designated Authority under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (Divisional Commissioner), Jammu and Sessions Judge Udhampur, respectively. Petitioners, by issuance of writ of mandamus against the respondents, are also seeking that the properties seized from the two residential houses/accommodation of the petitioners located in Delhi and Hyderpora, be released in favour of the petitioners on any condition which the Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. With a view to appreciate the controversy involved, it would be apt to give brief factual background of the instant case.
3. A notice was issued by respondent no.2 on 26.03.2008 to the petitioners indicating therein that Deputy Superintendent of Police, HQ Udhampur, after obtaining search warrant from the CJM Udhampur duly endorsed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, conducted search of their houses situated at Nadira Apartment 2nd Floor, Johri Farm, Okhla, New Delhi on
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.
Seizure of property under the PMLA must lapse after 365 days without a related prosecution complaint; the 'pendency' of proceedings involves a direct connection to the property seized.
The court affirmed the validity of property attachment under the U.A.P.A., confirming jurisdiction and procedural adherence despite contestation of unlawful association status.
Procedural lapses in seizure under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act do not invalidate the action if justified by the circumstances surrounding the case.
The court affirmed that the NIA can seek property attachment under Section 33 of the UA(P) Act during trial, independent of the definition of proceeds of terrorism.
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
