Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Santosh Construction – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 154 of 2023
Decided On : 16-03-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 353, 379 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 6, 8, 21 – Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 33, 25 – Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 – Section 17(i), (ii) – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27 – Forfeiture of property of certain persons – Offences by companies – Criminal Appeal – Learned court below has been pleased to dismiss appeal and confirmed order, passed by designated authority by which designated authority has confirmed order of seizure of cash – Held, Court, on consideration of factual aspect as per discussion made hereinabove and after going through contents of order impugned, has found therefrom that learned Special Judge has considered fact which has been brought to its notice by investigating agency showing culpability of appellant under provision of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and explanation so furnished has not been found to be supported by the persons concerned from whom amount said to have been taken as loan/credit by appellant and further, said amount has also not found in corroboration with the Income Tax Returns and if in that circumstances learned Special Judge has refused to interfere with the decision of the designated authority in order to maintain object and intent of Act, depending upon outcome of trial, same, according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error – Accordingly and for reason stated hereinabove, this Court is of view that order requires no interference – Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the order dated 06.01.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2022 arising out of Special (NIA) Case No. 02 of 2020 corresponding to R.C. No. 25/2020/NIA/DLI (Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019) by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the learned court below has been pleased to dismiss the appeal and confirmed the order dated 23.06.2022, passed by the designated authority by which the designated authority has confirmed the order of seizure of cash.
2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the F.I.R. being Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019 is that on 22.11.2019, at approx. 20 : 00 hours, a patrolling police party of Chandwa Police Station consisting of ASI, Sukra Oraon, Home Guard/662, Sakindra Singh, Home Guard/499, Shambhu Prasad, Home Guard/Dvr., Yamuna Prasad & Home Guard/10476, Dinesh Ram in patrolling PCR Government Vehicle, TATA Safari bearing Registration No. JH-19B-0716, stopped at Lukuiya Mode at Chandwa. The cadres of banned terrorist organization i.e., CPI (Maoist) who were waiting in advance, fired indiscriminately at the Police Patrolling Party and killed 4 Police Personnel. Later, they looted the Government issued Arms and Ammunition i.e. one (01) Pistol, ten (10) rounds of 9mm Ammunition, three .303 Rifles, with 150 Rounds, from the martyred Police Personnel, shouted slogans of “Maowadi Zindabad” and escaped from the place of incident. Later, one of the Home Guards namely Dinesh Ram, who had escaped un-hurt, went to Chandwa P.S. and lodged a complaint against 18 named accused persons and some unknown persons. The case was registered and numbered as Chandwa P.S. case no. 158 of 2019 dated 23.11.2019.
3. It appears from the record that after investigation, the Police submitted the charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 58 of 2020 on 02.07.2020 against six accused persons namely Baijnath Ganjhu, Sunil Ganjhu @ Mangra, Rajesh Kumar Ganjhu, Sanjay Ganjhu, Naresh Ganjhu and Faguna Ganjhu.
4. The Central Government, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, has directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the case, vide M.H.A. New Delhi, CTCR Division Order No. 11011/42/2020/NIA dated 22.06.2020 and accordingly, Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158 of 2019 dated 23.11.2019 was re-registered as RC 25/2020/NIA/DLI dated 24.06.2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 353 and 379 of the Penal Code, 1860, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17(i) & (ii) of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 10, 13, 17 and 18 of Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967 against 18 named accused persons and others.
5. During investigation of NIA, role of Mritunjay Kumar Singh, son of appellant Santosh Kumar Singh (A-8) emerged and it came to knowledge that since 2012 he was in contact with Maovadi Ravindra Ganjhu and he used to provide financial assistance to proscribed terrorist organisation.
6. On 21.11.2019, a day before of Lukuiya More incident, the petitioner alongwith Shivnath Yadav, Abul Ansari and Ravi Ranjan @ Pintu Singh went to Bearjangha forest and met Ravindra Ganjhu (A-14) where Ravindra Ganjhu apart from other discussions asked the petitioner to give terror fund amounting to Rs. 20 lacs, out of Rs. 20 lacs petitioner settled for Rs. 12 lacs and assured Ravindra Ganjhu for helping his wife in getting bail. Thereafter, A-8 Mrityunjay Singh paid Rs. 2 lakhs to A-14 and returned.
7. It further transpired during investigation and on the basis of confession of co-accused persons search was conducted on 10.10.2020 on eight places and incriminating materials and documents were recovered. During search in the house of accused Mritunjay Singh A-8 unaccounted money Rs
gpt-4
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.
The main legal point established is that the appellant's actions, driven by extortion and compulsion, did not constitute voluntary involvement in terrorist activities, leading to the court's decision....
The court established that involvement with a banned terrorist organization and the collection of levies for such groups constitutes serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, warranting denial of bail wh....
The court established that statutory bail restrictions under the UAPA must be balanced with constitutional rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial, and that prolonged detention without trial....
The NIA has the power to investigate cases under the NIA Act, and the court must consider the prima facie case against the accused, the length of custody, and the likelihood of trial conclusion when ....
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
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
