RUBINA AKHTER Vs. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2008) is directed against the orders dtd. 8/10/2021 issued by the Designated Authority as well as the order dtd. 25/7/2022 rendered by the Court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (the Special Judge under Sec. 22 of NIA Act) as an appellate authority in an appeal under Sec. 25(6) of the Unlawful Activity (Prevention), Act, 1967 (for short 'the UA(P) Act') titled 'Rubina Akhter vs National Investigation Agency and another'.

(2.) The impugned order of the Designated Authority dtd. 8/10/2021 has been assailed by the appellant on the grounds, that in FIR No. 292/2020 dtd. 27/12/2020 under Ss. 16/18/20 of the UA (P) Act read with Sec. 121-A/122/295-A IPC of Police Station Mendhar, the investigation was assigned to NIA by the Government of India taking into consideration the gravity of the case whereafter the NIA B/O Jammu accordingly re-registered the case as RC- 02/2021/NIA/JMU dtd. 16/3/2021 and the investigation was commenced; that the order of Designated Authority dtd. 8/10/2021 is after thought and suffers from illegality as the same is in violation of Sec. 25(2)(3) of the UA(P) Act as on the date of seizure of the vehicle on 27/12/2020, the Investigating Officer had to inform the Designated Authority within 48 hours of seizure of the vehicle and in the case in hand the procedure has not been followed by the Investigating Officer i.e SDPO Mendhar; that as per sub Sec. 2 of Sec. 25 the UA(P) Act, the Investigation Officer i.e SDPO Mendhar has to inform the Designated Authority i.e Director General of Police of UT of J&K within 48 hours of seizure of vehicle (Scorpio) bearing registration No. JK02BG-8086; that the Designated Authority has issued the impugned order dtd. 8/10/2021 after the lapse of six (6) months and twenty two (22) days, whereas in terms of sub Sec. 3 of Sec. 25 of the UA(P) Act, the Designated Authority has to issue the impugned order dtd. 8/10/2021 within period of 60 days.

(3.) Further the impugned order dtd. 25/7/2022 passed by appellate authority of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (NIA Court) under Sec. 25(6) of the UA(P) Act has been assailed by the appellant primarily on the ground, that the seized vehicle was never involved in any terrorist activity and incase the same is kept in the police station for a long time there is likelihood of it being damaged and becoming junk as the same is perishable item, and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping it in custody, moreso, the trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that no material or evidence connects the vehicle for using the same in furtherance of terrorist activity or is a proceed of terrorism.