Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 159 (JHR)

Urmila Trivedi v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-16

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - Instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari by quashing the notice/order dated 15.10.2018 whereby and whereunder in exercise of power conferred under Article 24-A and 25 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "of the Act, 1967" for short) petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises and also to seal it without providing an opportunity of hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, are that petitioner has purchased a piece of land along with construction over the area measuring 3 katha and some chattaks under Jamabandi No.52 in Mouza Makatpur, Thana No.95, holding No.193 under Ward No.1 (old) and Ward No.9(new) within the Giridih Municipality from one Sushma Singh by way of registered sale deed dated 18th June, 2011 and is in peaceful possession over the same 3. Respondents have issued a notice/order served on the petitioner on 15.10.2018 issued in exercise of power conferred under the provision of Section 24-A and 25 of the Act, 1967 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises on the alleged ground that the said property belongs to one Manoj Choudhary. The grievance of the petitioner is that aforesaid exercise has been done by virtue of decision taken by the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi wherein reference of plot number has been made as 153-B while the petitioner residence is situated over plot No.193-B and therefore initiation of proceeding under the aforesaid provision of law is improper and since foundation itself is wrong, its consequence cannot be said to be perfect. 4. The State-respondent has filed affidavit wherein, inter-alia, it has been stated that there is some typographical error in making reference of the number of plot. Actually petitioner resides in plot No.193 but due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake it has been referred as 153 but actually the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises situated over plot No.193 and that has also been sealed. 5. Actually petitioner resides in plot No.193 but due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake it has been referred as 153 but actually the petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises situated over plot No.193 and that has also been sealed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, it is evident from the material available on record that the Central Government has come up with an enactment in the name of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with an object to prevent the terrorist activities. The said statute contains provision of punishment for unlawful activities (Section 13) and the forfeiture of proceeds of terrorism as per the provision made under Section 24-A and 25 contained under Chapter-V of the Act, 1967. For better appreciation the provision of Section 24-A and 25 are being reflected hereinbelow: "24-A. Forfeiture of proceeds of terrorism.- (1) No person shall hold or be in possession of any proceeds of terrorism. (2) Proceeds of terrorism, whether held by a terrorist organization or terrorist gang or by any other person and whether or not such terrorist or other person is prosecuted or convicted for any offence under Chapter IV or Chapter VI, shall be liable to be forfeited to the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in the manner provided under this Chapter. (3) Where proceedings have been commenced under this section, the Court may pass an order directing attachment or forfeiture, as the case may be, of property equivalent to, or, the value of the proceeds of terrorism involved in the offence. 25. (3) Where proceedings have been commenced under this section, the Court may pass an order directing attachment or forfeiture, as the case may be, of property equivalent to, or, the value of the proceeds of terrorism involved in the offence. 25. Powers of investigating officer and Designated Authority and appeal against order of Designated Authority.- (1) If an officer investigating an offence committed under Chapter IV or Chapter VI, has reason to believe that any property in relation to which an investigation is being conducted, represents proceeds of terrorism, he shall, with the prior approval in writing of the Director General of Police of the State in which such property is situated, make an order seizing such property and where it is not practicable to seize such property, make an order of attachment directing that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with except with the prior permission of the officer making such order, or of the Designated Authority before whom the property seized or attached is produced and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned. (2) The investigating officer shall duly inform the Designated Authority within forty-eight hours of the seizure or attachment of such property. (3) The Designated Authority before whom the seized or attached property is produced shall either confirm or revoke the order of seizure or attachment so issued within a period of sixty days from the date of such production: Provided that an opportunity of making a representation by the person whose property is being seized or attached shall be given. (4) In the case of immovable property attached by the investigating officer, it shall be deemed to have been produced before the Designated Authority, when the investigating officer notifies his report and places it at the disposal of the Designated Authority. (4) In the case of immovable property attached by the investigating officer, it shall be deemed to have been produced before the Designated Authority, when the investigating officer notifies his report and places it at the disposal of the Designated Authority. (5) The investigating officer may seize and detain any cash to which this Chapter applies if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that- (a) it is intended to be used for the purposes of terrorism; or (b) it forms the whole or part of the resources of a terrorist organization: Provided that the cash seized under this sub-section by the investigating officer shall be released within a period of forty-eight hours beginning with the time when it is seized unless the matter involving the case is before the Designated Authority and such Authority passes an order allowing its retention beyond forty-eight hours. Explanation.- ..... ........ ........... ........ (6) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Designated Authority may prefer an appeal to the Court within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, and the Court may either confirm the order of attachment of property or seizure so made or revoke such order and release the property." 6. It is evident from the provision as contained under Section 24-A which prohibits to hold or to be in possession of any proceeds of terrorism. Section 25 provides power of Investigating Officer and designated authorities which provides that the Investigating Officer, if has reason to believe that any property in relation to which investigation is being conducted, represents proceeds of terrorism, he shall, with the prior approval in writing of the Director General of Police of the State in which such property is situated, make an order seizing such property and where it is not practicable to seize such property, and making an order of attachment directing that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with except with the prior permission of the Officer making such order, or of the designated authority before whom property seized or attached is produced and copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned. But before doing such, an opportunity of making a representation by the person whose property is being seized or attached shall be given. 7. But before doing such, an opportunity of making a representation by the person whose property is being seized or attached shall be given. 7. It is in pursuance of the aforesaid provision, the Investigating Officer has conducted an enquiry and order has been passed (impugned) to vacate the premises occupied by the petitioner on the ground of his involvement in the terrorists activities, the said action cannot be said to be illegal but the question is that the action ought to have been taken by following the provision as contained in the statute. 8. It is admitted case of the State-respondent that in the order passed by the Director General of Police dated 15.10.2018 there is reference of plot No.153-B which is said to be in the name of Manoj Choudhary from whom petitioner has purchased the property but it has been admitted that the premises of petitioner is situated under Plot No.193 but due to typographical error the record of plot No.153 has been made in the said order but herein sufficient evidence has been gathered by the Investigating Officer with respect to accumulation of proceeds obtained by way of proceeds of terrorism. 9. This Court, therefore, is of the view that merely on account of making wrong reference of plot No.153-B in the decision taken by Director General of Police, the action contemplated in view of the provision of Section 24-A and 25 of the Act, 1967 cannot be said to be improper however, since there is typographical error in plot number wherein reference of 153-B has been made against the name of one Manoj Kumar Choudhary, therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to satisfy the authority concerned showing therein that he is not concerned with the premises which has been seized/sealed. If any such application would be filed by the petitioner, that would be verified by the Investigating Officer before proceeding further. 10. With these observation, instant writ petition stands disposed of.