Order Confirming Property Attachment Under UAPA Not Interlocutory; Appealable U/S 21 NIA Act: Delhi High Court
The Court held that the order passed by the Court under Section 25(6) of the UAPA is final and not ‘interlocutory’ in nature, therefore, provides a right to appeal.
The Delhi High Court has held that an order passed by a Special Judge confirming the attachment of property under Section 25(6) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is not an interlocutory order, thereby making an appeal against it fully maintainable under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008.
Rejecting the preliminary objections raised by the NIA, the Court observed that property attachment under Section 25 and property forfeiture under Section 26 of the UAPA represent two distinct, final stages of proceedings.
The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja held, "The scheme of the UAPA itself shows that there are two different distinct stages; one of attachment of the property under Section 25 of the said Act and the other of forfeiture of the property under Section 26 of the said Act. Simple attachment of the property does not automatically lead to its forfeiture under Section 26 of the UAPA. In fact, a separate show cause notice is required to be given under Section 27 of the said Act, and upon hearing the concerned party, an order of forfeiture is to be passed under Section 26 of the Act. The two appeals would, therefore, be dealing with distinct stages of the proceedings which are final in their own stages. In any case, there is no reason to presume that the High Court while dealing with the second appeal, will not take due cognizance of the order passed by the High Court in the previous appeal, if any."
Advocate Adit S Pujari appeared for the Appellant, while SPP Rahul Tyagi appeared for the Respondent
Brief Facts
An appeal was filed assailing the order passed by the Sessions Court dismissing a criminal appeal filed by the appellant herein. The Appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 5(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, after attachment of his properties was confirmed by the Designated Authority.
Therefore, the present appeal was filed by the Appellant under Section 25(6) of the UAPA read with Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Submissions/Contentions of the Parties
The NIA had raised the objection as to the maintainability of the present appeal, to which the Appellant submitted that a proper remedy against an order passed under Section 25(6) of the UAPA is available in the form of an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act.
The NIA submitted that against an order of attachment, Section 25(6) of the UAPA provides for only one appeal, that is, to the Special Court. Similarly, against an order of forfeiture of the property passed under Section 26 of the UAPA, a remedy of appeal to the High Court is provided under Section 28 of the UAPA.
It was added that, therefore, Section 21 of the NIA Act would have no application to an order passed under Section 25(6) of the UAPA, as this would be like providing a second appeal against the order of attachment of property.
Observations/Findings of the Court
The Court observed that Section 21 of the NIA Act provides for a right to appeal against any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, passed by the Special Court to the High Court, both on facts and on law.
"This is an unrestricted Statutory right vested in the parties, with the only exception being that the order passed by the learned Special Judge should not be an interlocutory order", the Court held.
As regards UAPA, the Court observed that Section 28 of the UAPA provides a right to appeal against the order of forfeiture passed under Section 26 of the said Act.
"From a reading of the above provisions, therefore, it is apparent that as far as the seizure or attachment of property as “proceeds of terrorism” is concerned, the order passed by the Court under Section 25(6) of the UAPA is final and not ‘interlocutory’ in nature. Any such order may, under Section 26 of the UAPA, result in forfeiture of such property, however, that is a stage subsequent to the confirmation of seizure/attachment of the property", it held.
Consequently, the Court held that the appeal was maintainable and rejected the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Court listed the matter for further hearing.
Cause Title: Aquil Ahmed v. National Investigation Agency [CRL.A. 1011/2024]
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocates Adit S. Pujari, Prerna Mukherjee, Bhavesh Seth, Vibhav Rawat, Shaikh Saipan, Md. Arif Hussain, Abdul Shukoor, Shereef K. A. and Mansoor Ali
Respondent: SPP Rahul Tyagi, Advocates Vikas Walia, Jatin, Avinash Kumar Singh, Amit Rohilla and Priyansh Raj Singh