Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ
Sudesh Kedia, son of Late Gouri Shanker Kedia – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
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 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.
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....
The court upheld the seizure of properties under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating a direct link between properties and illegal narcotics activities for forfeiture.
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
