Procedural Delays In Reporting Seizures To Designated Authority Under UAPA Will Not Invalidate Proceedings: J&K High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that procedural delays in informing the Designated Authority about seizures under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) do not render the proceedings invalid.“The information though required to be communicated within 48 hours of the seizure, the delay, if any, caused will not by itself be fatal. The time line given to inform the Designated Authority of seizure or attachment is not mandatory one keeping in view the fact that the seizure has been made under the stringent provisions of law”, the court comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta explained.The case stemmed from the seizure of a vehicle during the investigation of an FIR registered under Sections 13, 16, 18, and 38 of the UAPA, alongside provisions of the NDPS Act and the Arms Act. The vehicle was allegedly used for transporting arms, ammunition, and narcotics.The Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir, acting as the Designated Authority under the UAPA, confirmed the seizure. Subsequently, the appellants, Mohammad Amin Sheikh and Khalida Begum, challenged the order before the NIA Court. After the NIA Court upheld the seizure, the appellants moved the High Court, contesting procedural lapses in the seizure process.The appellants argued that the Investigating Officer (IO) failed to inform the Designated Authority of the seizure within 48 hours as required under Section 25 of the UAPA, instead doing so after a delay of 10 months. They also contended that the Designated Authority failed to confirm or revoke the seizure within the stipulated 60 days. Claiming these lapses were fatal to the proceedings, the appellants sought the release of the vehicle, citing its diminishing value and the lack of any benefit to the prosecution in retaining it.Courts Observations: The court extensively examined Section 25 of the UAPA, which mandates that an IO must inform the Designated Authority of a seizure within 48 hours, while the Authority is required to confirm or revoke the seizure within 60 days. In its observations, the court clarified:“The time line given to inform the Designated Authority of seizure or attachment is not mandatory one keeping in view the fact that the seizure has been made under the stringent provisions of law. Similarly, if the Designated Authority fails to make its order within 60 days confirming or revoking the seizure, period prescribed for the Designated Authority to pass the order, the delay, if any, caused by the said Authority cannot be the reason to overturn the order on that basis only”.The court added,“It is not made out from the provision that in case the Authority fails to pass order within the period of 60 days, the proceedings initiated by the Investigating Officer regarding the seizure shall lapse”.The court further noted that procedural fairness had been upheld as the Designated Authority provided the appellants with an opportunity to represent their case. Therefore, the appellants could not challenge the order solely on procedural grounds, the court said.The court also addressed the appellants' contention that the vehicle, being mortgaged, could not be seized under the UAPA. It rejected this argument reasoning that the vehicle being used for illegal purposes is sufficient reason to seize the vehicle and proceed under the Act. The argument that the vehicle, being mortgaged, could not be seized is untenable, especially when it is alleged to have been used for terrorist purposes, the could observed.Finally, the court dismissed the plea to release the vehicle, noting that its identity might be required during the trial. It observed,“The alleged purpose for which the vehicle has been used does not call for its release. The owner of the vehicle can be duly compensated later on if the trial court determines that the vehicle is not required to be forfeited.”Case Title: Mohammad Amin Sheikh Vs Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 9Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Procedural Delays In Reporting Seizures To Designated Authority Under UAPA Will Not Invalidate Proceedings: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Procedural Delays In Reporting Seizures To Designated Authority Under UAPA Will Not Invalidate Proceedings: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers