NAVAL KISHORE KAPOOR Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Act, 2008 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') assailing the order dated 06.02.2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi whereby cognizance was taken against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 17 and 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI, on a supplementary chargesheet dated 22.01.2019.

(2.) While assailing the impugned order, Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the impugned order is based on conjunctures and surmises and deserves to be set aside; that appellant was named as Public Witness-28 in the main charge sheet dated 18.01.2018 filed by the respondent; that the appellant had been joining the investigation as and when called by the respondent; that on 25.07.2018, the appellant was handed over a notice dated 24.07.2018 under Section 34 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act by the respondent for providing the bank statement of M/s. N.Z. International FZC, Dubai from the opening to closing date till 31.07.2018; that on 26.07.2018, the appellant was arrested without being served with an arrest order or communicating the reasons and grounds of his arrest; that the appellant was arraigned as accused No. 13 in the supplementary chargesheet filed under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 17 and 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; that vide Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court erroneously and wrongly took cognizance against the appellant holding that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the appellant; that the learned Trial Court failed to take note that no fresh material for the submission of the supplementary chargesheet has been filed by the respondent; that the respondent deliberately and knowingly suppressed the material evidence; that the respondent wrongly linked the appellant with the accused No. 10 Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali for aiding and abetting the flow of funds to channelize the same to the secessionists and separatists in Kashmir Valley; that the allegation against the appellant that he had entered into an Agreement with M/s Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (Accused No.10) for purchase of a piece of land measuring 20 Kanals in Sozeith Goripara Nagbal, Budgam for a consideration of Rs.6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crore Only) as premium and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as annual rent for initial period of 40 years and the appellant remitted a total sum of Rs.5,57,90,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Fifty Seven Lacs Ninety Thousand Only) in 22 instalments between 2013 and 2016, however, no land in question was found in the name of M/s Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant was remitting the foreign money in India through accused No. 10, is vague and without any supporting document, hence, no offence under Section 120-B of IPC and Sections 17 and 21 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is made out against the appellant.

(3.) Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Hitendera Vishnu Thakur and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1994 AIR(SC) 2623, wherein the Apex Court has observed that: