AMINA AHMED DOSSA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appearing for the respondent Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Soclicitor General has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals in terms of Section 18 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in this Court on the ground that as the order impugned is not a judgment, sentence or final order passed by the Designated Court, the remedy of appeal is not available to the appellants. In support of his contention he has referred to the provisions of Section 8 of the Act read with Sections 82 to 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").

(2.) In proceedings for attachment of properties under Sction 8 of the Act, the appellants herein along with some other persons preferred claims, claiming rights and interests in the properties sought to be attached on the prayer of the prosecution. In a lengthy and deailed judgment, spread over 559 pages, the Designated Court rejected their claims and passed orders against them in terms of Section 8 of the Act read with Section 84 of the Code.

(3.) It is conceded before us that the impugned order is neither a judgment nor a sentence. The controversy is with respect to the nature of the order impugned as the respondent-State submits that the said order passed under Section 8 of the Act read with Section 84 of the Code is an interlocutory order whereas the appellants submit that the order is a final order so far as parties in the appeals are concerned.