The Jharkhand High Court has set aside the attachment of a scooty belonging to the wife of a man accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for collecting levy for the banned outfit Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC). The Court said her relationship with the accused was not enough to conclude that the vehicle had been bought from proceeds of terrorism.

A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Arun Kumar Rai noted that the woman was employed with Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) and had an independent source of income. The vehicle was also registered in her name.

The appeal arose from an NIA case concerning alleged collection of levy from coal traders and DO holders in the Amrapali-Magadh coal area in Tandwa. According to the prosecution, the money was being collected in the name of TPC. The case was registered after a police raid in January 2016. Around Rs. 91.75 lakh in cash was allegedly recovered from the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu. The police claimed that Ganjhu was the president of the “Magadh Sanchalan Samittee” and that the money collected as levy was passed on to members of TPC.

During investigation, several movable and immovable properties standing in the names of Ganjhu's family members were seized. These included a TVS scooty registered in the name of his wife, Sushila Devi, a JCB loader in the name of his brother, and a two-storeyed house standing on land purchased in the name of his mother. The Designated Authority under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act attached the properties in March 2019. The attachment was later upheld by the Special NIA Court, Ranchi.

Before the High Court, Sushila Devi argued that she was a CCL employee earning around Rs. 82,000 per month and had purchased the scooty from her own income. It was also pointed out that the vehicle was purchased in December 2018, nearly two years after the initial raid. The High Court accepted her case. It found that she had the financial capacity to purchase the vehicle and had produced documents showing ownership of the scooty. The Bench observed:

“The appellant no. 1 is an employee of Central Coalfields Limited and drawing a handsome salary. The purchase of the scooty cannot be said to be from the proceeds of crime on account of the self-acquired financial prowess of the appellant no. 1 and merely because the appellant no. 1 is the wife of Binod Ganjhu, the same would not persuade the court to subscribe to the contention of the NIA that the scooty was purchased from the proceeds of terrorism.”

The Court added that her claim over the vehicle could not be rejected merely because the mode of transaction had not been shown. It accordingly set aside the attachment insofar as the scooty was concerned.

The Bench, however, reached a different conclusion on the other two properties. As regards the JCB loader, the Court noted that the appellant had only produced a document showing payment of an instalment of Rs. 82,000 to the finance company. Considering the substantial cost of the vehicle, the Court said there was no material showing his financial capacity or the source from which it had been funded. It therefore upheld its attachment.

The Court also refused to interfere with the attachment of the two-storeyed house. It found no evidence to show that the house had been constructed from a legitimate source of income. The bare claim that it was joint family property standing in the mother's name was not enough to establish its legitimate source.

Case Title: Sushila Devi and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 2168 of 2023

Appearance: Mr. Balaji Srinivasan for the Appellants; Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Senior Advocate, for the NIA.

Click Here To Read/Download Order