[S.25 UAPA] Mere Delay In Informing Authorities About Seizure Of Vehicle Allegedly Used In Terrorism Not Fatal To Investigation: J&K High Court

While upholding the order passed by the Trial Court for the seizure of a vehicle allegedly used in terrorism, the J&K High Court has observed that the procedural timeline given to inform the Designated Authority of seizure or attachment within 48 hours is not mandatory under Section 25 of the UAPA.It was also observed that if the Designated Authority fails to make its order within 60 days of confirming or revoking the seizure, the delay cannot be a reason to overturn the order of seizure.A bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta was hearing the appeal against the order passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla (NIA Court) which confirmed the seizure of the vehicle as proceeds of terrorism. The FIR under Sections 13, 16, 18, 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967 and 8/21 NDPS Act and 7/25 Arms Act were registered against the accused person for possessing illegal contraband and arms.The court noted that Section 25 of the UAPA empowers the investigating officer to make an order for seizure of the property believing the same to be proceeds of terrorism with the approval of the Director General of the Police, and while the information was required to be given within 48 hours, the delay if any caused would not be fatal.It was stated that the procedural lapse while making the seizure of the vehicle allegedly used for carrying the banned substance during the course of the investigation was the subject matter of the appeal. The order of the seizure was earlier confirmed by the divisional commissioner and the appeal to the same was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla. The Appellant argued that the mandate of section 25 of the UAPA act requires that a vehicle seized was to be produced before the designated officer within period of 48 hours. However, the same was produced after the period of 10 months post-seizure, violating the above provision. It was also urged that the vehicle was mortgaged and thus should not be classified as proceeds of terrorism.The Advocate General for respondents argued that the Appellants could not have fruits of the vehicle as the same was used by the accused for illegal purposes.While responding to the argument raised by the appellant, the court said that the vehicle even if mortgaged, is no ground to accept the argument of the appellants that the vehicle could not be seized by the police. It said that the vehicle being used for illegal purposes was sufficient reason to seize it and proceed under the Act and the owner can be duly compensated if the trial court decides to forfeit the said property.Therefore, it was held that ownership of the vehicle is irrelevant if the same has been used for carrying out terrorist or other criminal activities. The High Court also pointed out that the owners of the vehicle were given the opportunity to file representation before the designated authority. Therefore the seizure was valid and necessary for the purpose of identification during the trial. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's order in refusing to release the said vehicle. APPEARANCE:Parvaiz Ahmad Wani, Advocate for AppellantsMohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG for RespondentsCase Title: Mohammad Amin Sheikh & Khalida Begum vs. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir & Others, 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 21Click Here To Read/Download Order

[S.25 UAPA] Mere Delay In Informing Authorities About Seizure Of Vehicle Allegedly Used In Terrorism Not Fatal To Investigation: J&K High Court

Aleem Syeed

Tags