IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Sudesh Kedia, son of Late Gouri Shanker Kedia - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 641 of 2024
Decided On : 28-01-2025
(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 25(3) - Appeal against order of seizure - The appellant challenged the order of seizure of Rs.9,95,000/- by NIA, alleging it was not proceeds of terrorism. The court found sufficient evidence linking the appellant to extortion activities of a terrorist organization, affirming the seizure order. (Paras 1, 12, 27, 50, 126)
(B) Reason to believe - The court emphasized that the investigating officer must have a rational basis for believing that seized property is linked to terrorism, which was established in the case. (Paras 25, 104)
(C) Appellate authority's role - The appellate court has the jurisdiction to uphold or revoke the seizure order based on evidence, and remanding the case is not necessary if sufficient evidence exists. (Paras 119, 122)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was involved in coal trading and was linked to extortion activities by the Tritiya Prastuti Committee. A raid led to the seizure of cash from his premises, which was deemed proceeds of terrorism.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the designated authority's order, confirming the seizure was justified based on the evidence of the appellant's involvement with a terrorist organization.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the seized cash constituted proceeds of terrorism and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the seizure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the investigating officer's belief was backed by sufficient evidence, affirming the seizure under Section 25(3) of the UAPA.
Result: The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 28 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for setting aside the order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the AJC XVI-cum- Special Judge, NIA, at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No.57/2020 arising out of Special NIA Case No. 10003 of 2018 corresponding to R.C. Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI, whereby the learned Special Court has rejected the Appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 25(6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'UAPA Act' for short] for setting aside the order dated 07.12.2018 passed by Respondent, wherein the order of seizure passed by the Investigating Officer of the case bearing RC- 06/2018/NIA/DLI has been confirmed and further prayer for releasing the article/property seized by NIA in connection with the said case has also been rejected.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution story in brief which requires to be enumerated, is as under:
3. The case was originally instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 (1-B) (a), 26 & 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1) (2) of the CLA Act, on the basis of a secret information received by the Police, regarding realization / extortion of levy by the banned unlawful association/terrorist gang Tritiya Prastuti Committee (for short ‘TPC’), in the coal region of Amarpali / Magadh Projects of Central Coalfield Ltd., (in short ‘CCL’) from the contractors, transporters, D.O. (Delivery Order) holders and coal traders. On such information, the house of one Binod Kumar Ganjhu was raided on 11.01.2016, from where, an amount of Rs.91,75,890/- and two mobile phones were recovered. Two other persons, Birbal Ganjhu and Munesh Ganjhu were also found there in suspicious condition, and loaded firearms and cartridges were recovered from them. All the three were apprehended by the police, who confessed their proximity with the banned unlawful association / terrorist gang TPC.
4. On the basis of the disclosure of Binod Ganjhu, the house of one Pradeep Ram was raided, from where also, Rs.57,57,710/- and four cell phones were recovered. Accordingly, Tandwa P.S Case No. 02 of 2016 was instituted for the offences under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25 (1-B) (a), 26 & 35 of the Arms Act and Section 17 (1) (2) of the CLA Act, and investigation was taken up.
5. In the aforesaid F.I.R., a Charge- sheet was initially submitted by the Police, being Charge Sheet No. 17 of 2016 dated 10th March, 2016, for the alleged offence under Sections 414, 384, 386, 387 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and under Section 17(1)(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, against the persons, who were members of banned outfit TPC and investigation was also continued against certain accused persons.
6. Subsequently, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the Central Government, vide order dated 13.02,2018, under Section 6 sub section (5) of NIA Act 2008, directed the N.I.A. to take over the investigation of the case, and Sections 16, 17, 20 & 23 of the UA(P) Act were also added.
7. It is stated that the Appellant is the Director of company being M/s. Esskay Concast & Minerals Private Limited and is carrying the business of coal trading
8. And a raid was conducted by NIA on 09.10.2018 in the office and house of the Appellant and accordingly search and seizure of amount Rs. 9,95000/- was made. Thereafter, order contained in Letter No. DG/NIA/MHA/NEW DELHI NO. 11011/08/2018/NIA dated 11.10.2018 was passed by the designated authority under Section 25(5) of the UAP Act allowing the Chief Investigating Officer to retain the said seized cash beyond 48 hours.
9. Thereafter, the appellant filed representation on 25.10.2018 against the order dated 11.10.2018 before the designated authority of Respondent i.e. Joint Secretary, MHA Designated Author
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 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 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.
Bail application – Task to convince court that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accusations are prima facie true becomes more onerous in a case of bail without ousting such prayer, ....
The court established that under the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), the standard for denying bail is based on whether the accusations are prima facie true, which requires a careful examination of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.