Order Confirming Attachment Of Property Under UAPA Appealable Under NIA Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that an order passed under Section 25(6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), confirming seizure or attachment of property as “proceeds of terrorism”, can be challenged before the High Court under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act).
A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that an order under Section 25(6) is final and not interlocutory in nature.
“… as far as the seizure or attachment of property as “proceeds of terrorism” is concerned, the order passed by the Court under Section 25(6) of the UAPA is final and not 'interlocutory' in nature. Any such order may, under Section 26 of the UAPA, result in forfeiture of such property, however, that is a stage subsequent to the confirmation of seizure/attachment of the property,” the Court said.
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by one Aquil Ahmed challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the Special Judge.
Vide the impugned order, the Special Judge had upheld an order passed by the Designated Authority, Union Ministry of Home Affairs, confirming attachment of the fourth and fifth floors of a property situated in Pune under Section 25(3) of the UAPA.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that Chapter V of the UAPA constitutes a complete code for dealing with seizure, attachment and forfeiture of proceeds of terrorism.
It contended that Section 25(6) of UAPA provides for an appeal against the Designated Authority's order to the Special Court, while Section 28 separately provides for an appeal to the High Court against an eventual order of forfeiture under Section 26.
According to the NIA, permitting an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act would effectively create a second appeal against an attachment order.
Rejecting the said objection, the Bench noted that Section 21 of the NIA Act provides a statutory right of appeal against any judgment, sentence or order of a Special Court, except an interlocutory order.
It said that the aforesaid is an “unrestricted Statutory right” vested in the parties, with the only exception being that the order passed by the Special Judge should not be an interlocutory order.
Further, the Court noted that while an attachment order under Section 25 may subsequently result in forfeiture under Section 26, forfeiture is a separate stage.
It said that before forfeiture, Section 27 requires issuance of a show cause notice and an opportunity of representation and hearing to the concerned person.
“Simple attachment of the property does not automatically lead to its forfeiture under Section 26 of the UAPA,” the Court observed.
It said: “In fact, a separate show cause notice is required to be given under Section 27 of the said Act, and upon hearing the concerned party, an order of forfeiture is to be passed under Section 26 of the Act. The two appeals would, therefore, be dealing with distinct stages of the proceedings which are final in their own stages. In any case, there is no reason to presume that the High Court while dealing with the second appeal, will not take due cognizance of the order passed by the High Court in the previous appeal, if any.”
Holding the appeal maintainable, the Court rejected the NIA's preliminary objection.
The appeal is now listed for final hearing on December 02.
Title: AQUIL AHMED v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH THE CHIEF INVESTIGATING OFFICER