LexNAMAD HASSAN BHAGAD AND ORS. versus STATE OFGUJARAT AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B NAMAD HASSAN BHAGAD AND ORS. v. STATE OF·GUJARAT AND ORS. MAY 9, 1996 [A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.J Terrorist and Dismptive Activities Prevention Act-Sections 3, 4, 5, 7A Indian Penal Cod~Sections 121, 12JA, 122, 34--Anns Act-25(J)(A)(D), 25(I)(A)(2), 25(J)AA, 25(A)(B), 25(A)(F)-Wireless Telegraph C Act-Sec.211-Bombay Police Act-Section 135(1}-Attachment of property involved in terrorist activity-Property to be attached must be prima-facie having sources of purchase from proceeds of tennrism-Not necessary to at- tach properties of only those who are involved in the offence under TADA Act. D E F In the course of investigation in a case booked under the TADA Act, the District Superintendent of Police attached seven ships/vessels invoking powers under Section 87 A of TADA. An application made by the Police to the Designated Judge for confirming the attachment, was opposed by the appellants claiming to be the owners of the ships in question. The appellants contended that Section 7A of the TADA came into force on and from 22.5.93 and the purchases of all the ships having taken place well before that date, the provisions of TADA cannot be invoked, that none of the owners had ever been arrested either under TADA or under the Customs Act and hence Section 7 A of the TADA is not applicable and that to invoke Section 7 A of TADA there should be knowledge or reasons to believe that properties attached are involved in terrorist activities and that requirement was not satisfied on the facts of the case. The Public Prosecutor contended that on prima facie case being made out and entertaining reason to believe that the property in question G falls within the mischief of Section 7 A the attachment in question was made, that further inquiry/investigation was still going on regarding all the seven ships to conclusively find as to whether they were involved in smuggling activities or not, and that since some of the persons were absconding and some others were not available, at that stage attachment H could not be revoked and he prayed for confirmation of attachment. 614 - N.H. BHAGAD v. STATE[K. VENKATASWAMI,J.] 615 TI1e Designated Judge on being satisfied with the primafacie finding A and on being satisfied with the prima facies case confirmed the attachment by the judgment under appeal. The Designated Court found that there was no mention at all in Section 7 A that the property to be investigated must be the property of an offender against whom the offence under Section 7 A is to be registered and what was required to be established was that the property in relation to which the investigation was made must be having sources of purchase from the amount or proceeds of terrorism or by way of commission of terrorist activity. Therefore, it found that it was not necessary or incumbent upon the Investigating Ollicer to attach only properties of the persons who were involved in the offence under TADA B Act and that on the other hand, any property can be attached if it is C reasonably believed that it was derived from the commission of any ter- rorist activity or was acquired by the proceeds of 'terrorism'. Disposing of the Appeal the Court HELD : 1. From the material ou record the Court is satisfied that D the Investigating Ollicer prima facie and reason to. believe that there is basis for invoking Section 7A of TADA. [618-G] 2. The conclusions reached by the designated Judge need not be interfered with. [619-AJ 3. The ship bearing the name "Nahi Mahar" cannot be kept under attachment, the reason being that this ship was purchased long before the passing of TADA. The said ship has to be released from attachment. [619-B) E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. F 507 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.7.94 of the Designated Judge (TADA ACT) Jamnagar in Order below Ex. 1 in Report Application (TADA ACT) No. 1of1993. B.K. Mehta, B.V. Desai and Mrs. Meeta Sharma for the Appellants. Dr. N.M. Ghatate, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ms. H. Wahi, Ms. S. Hazarika and Ms. Nandini Mukherjee for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G H 616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996/ SUPP. 2S.C.R. A K. VENKATASWAMI, J. This appeal preferred under section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter reforred to as "TADA") challenges the judgment and order of the learned Designated Judge (TADA), Jamnagar dat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.