Jharkhand High Court
M/S Santosh Construction vs Union Of India Through The … on 19 November, 2024
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 850 of 2024
-------------
1.M/s Santosh Construction, through its one of the partner
Santosh Kumar Singh, Son of late Ramcharitra Singh, aged
about 65 years, Resident of Village-Alaudia, P.O. & P.S. -
Chandwa, District-Latehar, Jharkhand.
2.Santosh Kumar Singh, Son of late Ramcharitra Singh, aged
about 65 years, Resident of Village-Alaudia, P.O. & P.S. -
Chandwa, District-Latehar, Jharkhand.
3.Pratima Devi, aged about -51 years, wife of Santosh Kumar
Singh, Resident of Village-Alaudia, P.O. & P.S. - Chandwa,
District-Latehar, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Union of India through the Superintendent of Police, National
Investigation Agency, having its Camp Office at Quarter
No.305, Sector II, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
... ... Respondent
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, Advocate
For the Resp. NIA
: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
-------
C.A.V. on 22.10.2024 Pronounced on 19.11.2024
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 21
of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against the
order dated 27.05.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.96 of
2023 arising out of Special (NIA) Case No.02 of 2020
corresponding to R.C. No.25/2020/NIA/DLI (Chandwa P.S.
Case No.158 of 2019) by the learned Additional Judicial
-1- Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
Commissioner-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi wherebyand whereunder the learned court has dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the order dated 28.04.2023, passed by the
designated authority by which the designated authority has
rejected the representation filed by the appellants under
Section 25(3) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and on being prima facie satisfied confirmed the order
of attachment.
Prosecution case:
2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made
in the F.I.R. being Chandwa P.S. Case No.158 of 2019 is that
on 22.11.2019, at approx. 20:00 hours, a patrolling police
party of Chandwa Police Station consisting of ASI, Sukra
Oraon, Home Guard/662, Sakindra Singh, Home
Guard/499, Shambhu Prasad, Home Guard/Dvr., Yamuna
Prasad & Home Guard/10476, Dinesh Ram in patrolling
PCR Government Vehicle, TATA Safari bearing Registration
No. JH-19B-0716, stopped at Lukuiya Mode at Chandwa.
The cadres of banned terrorist organization i.e., CPI (Maoist)
who were waiting in advance, fired indiscriminately at the
Police Patrolling Party and killed 4 Police Personnel. Later,
they looted the Government issued Arms and Ammunition
i.e. one (01) Pistol, ten (10) rounds of 9mm Ammunition,
three .303 Rifles, with 150 Rounds, from the martyred Police
Personnel, shouted slogans of “Maowadi Zindabad” and
-2- Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
escaped from the place of incident. Later, one of the Home
Guards namely Dinesh Ram, who had escaped un-hurt,
went to Chandwa P.S. and lodged a complaint against 18
named accused persons and some unknown persons. The
case was registered and numbered as Chandwa P.S. case no.
158 of 2019 dated 23.11.2019.
3. It appears from the record that after investigation, the
Police submitted the charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 58
of 2020 on 02.07.2020 against six accused persons namely
Baijnath Ganjhu, Sunil Ganjhu @ Mangra, Rajesh Kumar
Ganjhu, Sanjay Ganjhu, Naresh Ganjhu and Faguna
Ganjhu.
4. The Central Government, taking into consideration the
gravity of the offence, in exercise of the power conferred
under sub-section (5) of Section 6 read with Section 8 of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, has directed the
NIA to take up the investigation of the case, vide M.H.A. New
Delhi, CTCR Division Order No. 11011/42/2020/NIA dated
22.06.2020 and accordingly, Chandwa P.S. Case No. 158 of
2019 dated 23.11.2019 was re-registered as RC
25/2020/NIA/DLI dated 24.06.2020 under Sections 147,
148, 149, 452, 302, 353 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code,
Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17(i) & (ii) of Criminal
Law Amendment Act and Sections 10, 13, 17 and 18 of
Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967 against 18 named
-3- Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
accused persons and others.
5. During investigation on 10.10.2020, a search was
conducted purportedly in exercise of powers under Section
100(6) and 165 of Cr.P.C. in the house of Mritunjay Kumar
Singh, a former partner of the applicant firm and from the
bedroom of Santosh Kumar Singh an amount of Rs
2,64,42,000/- (Two crores sixty four lakhs and forty two
thousand only) was recovered and consequently seized.
6. After conclusion of the investigation supplementary
charge sheet was submitted by NIA on 30.04.2021, inter-alia
arraying one of the partners of the Firm namely Mritunjay
Kumar Singh as an accused. It may pertinently be
mentioned that the said Mritunjay Kumar Singh had already
resigned from the partnership firm on 09.01.2021 and the
Firm has not been made an accused in this case. When M/s
Santosh Construction approached the banks namely Sate
Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, it came to know
that as per the instructions of National Investigation Agency,
the entire accounts of M/s Santosh Construction have been
frozen as the National Investigation Agency is investigating
the case bearing RC25/2020/NIA/DLI in this regard.
Thereafter, M/s Santosh Construction was served with a
letter by the banks regarding the freezing of the bank
accounts on 08.02.2021 and 11.02.2021.
7. Being aggrieved by the actions of NIA, appellant no. 1-
-4- Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
M/s Santosh Construction preferred a Writ Petition bearing
W.P.(Cr.) No. 205/2021 with a prayer for
defreezing/unfreezing the bank account of M/s Santosh
Construction and on 02.08.2022, which was disposed with
a liberty to avail appropriate remedy as available to it under
the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as other provision of
the Act.
8. Aggrieved by the order dated 02.08.2022, M/s Santosh
Construction preferred S.L.P. bearing S.L.P.(Crl.) No.
9998/2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was
disposed of vide order dated 03.01.2023 observing that let
the investigating agency under the 1967 Act complete the
Investigation with respect to bank accounts in question/
transactions in question with a period of two months from
today and thereafter may take appropriate steps/actions as
per Section 25 of 1967 Act. If any case is made out and the
conditions mentioned under section 25 of 1967 Act are
satisfied, however, subject to the outcome of the
investigation as above, it goes without saying that if any
further steps/ actions are taken by the Investigating agency
U/s 25 of 1967 Act, it will always be open for the petitioners
to take further steps/avail the remedy which may be
available U/s 25 of the 1967 Act.
9. In the light of order dated 03.01.2023, passed in S.L.P.
(Crl.) No. 9998/2022, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
-5- Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
respondent authority proceeded under section- 25 (1) of the
UAPA Act and issued order of property Attachment on
03.03.2023. Thereafter vide order dated 16.03.2023, the
respondent-authority proceeded under section 25 (3) of the
UAPA Act and allowed 10 days’ time from the date of issue of
this order, for filing representation, before Designated
Authority.
10. Pursuant thereto, on 23.03.2023 representation was
filed in terms of order dated 16.03.2023 by the applicant
firms and its partners before the Designated Authority,
which was rejected vide order dated 28.04.2023.
11. Being aggrieved with order dated 28.04.2023, the
appellants preferred Criminal Appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 96
of 2023, under Section 25(6) of U.A.P.A. Act before the
Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, which was rejected vide order
dated 27.05.2024, against which the instant appeal has been
preferred by the appellants.
Submission of the appellants:
12. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant,
has assailed the impugned order passed by the learned
Special Judge on the following grounds:
I. Submission has been made that the learned
Special Judge has failed to take into account the very
definitions of ‗Proceeds of terrorism‖, which is defined
under Section 2(g) of UAPA Act, which means that (i)
-6- Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
all kinds of properties which have been derived orobtained from commission of any terrorist act or have
been acquired through funds proceeds are standing or in
whose possession they are found; or (ii) any property
which is being used, or is intended to be used for a
terrorist act or the purpose of an individual terrorist or a
terrorist gang or terrorist organization, and without
cogent evidence that appellants used to provide fund
extremists or channelize the fund of extremist; and come
to conclusions that seized property is Proceeds
represents proceeds of terrorism, which is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
II. The learned Court below has failed to take into account
that the NIA [investigating agency] has not been able to
prove that seized Accounts is ‗proceeds of Terrorism’,
therefore’ the action taken under section-25 of UAPA is
bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.
III. Further, there has been a blatant violation of the
procedure prescribed under Section 25 of UA(P) Act and
the initiation and continuation of the proceedings are
wholly without jurisdiction and as such the same is
liable to be set aside.
IV. The learned Court below has further failed to take into
consideration that the appellants have disclosed the
source of money in seized/Attached Bank accounts but
-7- Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
without considering this fact, the impugned has beenpassed.
V. The learned Court below has also failed to take into
consideration the fact that there is no Bank transaction
with any of the accused in the matter other than
Mrityunjay Kumar Singh (who was erstwhile partner of
M/S Santosh Construction) and without considering
that the impugned order has been passed holding the
source of money in seized/Attached Bank accounts to
be proceeds of terrorism, which is not at all tenable.
VI. The learned court below has failed to take into
consideration that no money has been received from
Mrityunjay Kumar Singh in seized/Attached Bank
accounts and without considering that fact the
impugned order has been passed.
VII. As a matter of fact, no material has been found by the
investigating agency, i.e., the NIA in the 1st Charge-
sheet or any material in relation to Bank Accounts or to
justify the claim of Proceeds of Terrorism and without
considering that impugned order has been passed.
VIII. Besides the issue on merit, issue of jurisdiction has also
been raised stating that there is no prior approval in
writing of the Director General of the Police of the State
or prior approval in writing of the Director General of
National Investigation Agency as enumerated under
-8- Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
section 25 (1) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act1967, therefore, the entire proceeding is bad in law.
IX. Further submission has been made that the M/s
Santosh Construction company is a Class-I
construction company and Class-I Government
Contractor, working for the last 40 years for
construction of road, transportation and material
supply. In the year 2013-14 to 2019-2020 till date the
firm is constructing the road after getting tender by the
Government and after years-to-years Government used
to pay tender amount along with security amount to
M/s Santosh Construction. Further, the M/s Santosh
Construction after receipt of such money used to file
Income Tax Return along with Audit Report.
X. So far the STDR, [Special Term Deposit Report], which is
mentioned in attachment order is concerned, all the
being prepared from the account of the company. The
appellants have all along disclosed their source of
money but without considering all these facts into
consideration, the designated authority rejected the
representation and confirmed the order of seizure,
which is per se illegal as the said seizure is not in
accordance with the provisions of UA(P) Act, 1967.
XI. It has further been submitted that Designated Authority
has failed to take into account that while granting bail
-9- Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
to erstwhile partner, namely, Mrityunjay Kumar Singhin Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 380 of 2021, the Hon’ble High
Court has come to the conclusion that prima facie case
under Section 43-D(5) of the U.A.(P) Act is not made out
and, as such, granted bail to said Mrityunjay Kumar
Singh. Therefore, the order passed by the Designated
Authority as also the order passed by the appellate
authority requires interference by this Court.
XII. It has been submitted that while freezing the 152 bank
account including Special Term Deposit Receipt (STDR)
account and one Mutual Fund Account etc. containing
the total amount of Rs. 20,65,20,496.41, there was no
ascertainment of the fact as to in which account
amount is said to be received of terror funding or
represents the ‗proceeds of terrorism’, which has been
attached u/s 25 (1) of the UA (P) Act, 1967 as proceeds
of terrorism.
XIII. Further argument has been advanced by referring to the
order passed by the designated authority that it is
cryptic in nature.
XIV. Learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that there is no active consideration of these
facts by the designated authority or by the appellate
authority as such impugned order is perverse in law.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants on the aforesaid
– 10 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
ground has submitted that all these facts have been
produced before the learned Special Judge but without
considering the same in right perspective, the decision of the
designated authority dated 28.04.2023 confirming the
seizure of the said amount has dismissed the appeal and, as
such, the order passed by the Special Judge is not just and
proper and fit to be quashed and set aside.
Submission on behalf of the respondent-NIA
14. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel
appearing for the NIA, has defended the order passed by the
learned Special Judge, by taking averments made in the
counter affidavit, on the following grounds:
I. Submission has been made that the instant case
relates to a terrorist incident which took place on
22.11.2019, when a patrolling party of Chandwa Police
Station was attacked by the armed cadres of banned
terrorist organization, CPI (Maoist), who
indiscriminately fired at the police patrolling party
causing death of four police personnel and looted the
arms and ammunition of the patrolling party and
thereafter fled away from the place of occurrence
raising anti-national and pro-Maoist slogans on arrival
of police reinforcements.
II. Initially, the case was registered as Chandwa Police
Station, being FIR No. 158 of 2019 on 23.11.2019,
– 11 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
however considering the seriousness of the incident
and manner of occurrence and involvement of terrorist
organization, the investigation of the case was handed
over to the National Investigation Agency and the case
was registered as RC-25/2020/NIA/DLI on
24.06.2020.
III. After taking over the investigation from the State Police
and after assessing the role and involvement in the
crime, accused Mrityunjay Kumar @ Sonu Singh (A- 8),
a key partner of the appellant firm M/S Santosh
Construction, Chandwa, Latehar, was arrested by the
NIA on 03.02.2021 and he was examined in police
remand whereby his voluntary disclosure statements
were recorded. He acknowledged his significant role as
a partner in M/S Santosh Construction. Furthermore,
he confessed to have provided various amounts of
money, through intermediaries, to members of the
terrorist organization CPI (Maoist) on multiple
occasions.
IV. Investigation has also established that Mritunjay Kr. (A-
8) was in regular touch with Maoist commander
Ravinder Ganjhu (A-14) and on (21.11.2019) a day
before the incident of killing of police personnel, he
along with Shivnath Yadav, Abul Ansari and Ravi
Ranjan had gone to meet Ravinder Ganjhu (A-14) and
– 12 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
paid him Rs. 2 Lakh and assured Ravinder Ganjhu (A-
14) that he will help in getting bail for Ravinder
Ganjhu’s wife.
V. During the course of investigation it was found that the
accused Mrityunjay Kumar @ Sonu Singh (A-8), who
was one of the key partners and signing authority of the
appellant no. 1- M/S Santosh Construction, Chandwa,
Latehar since 2012, developed a close association with
Ravindra Ganjhu (A-14), a Regional Commander of CPI
(Maoist), and frequently provided him with logistics and
financial support. This assistance was utilized by the
said top Maoist Ravindra Ganjhu (A-14) to carry out
terrorist activities and strengthen the organization.
VI. It is pertinent to mention that, accused Mrityunjay
Kumar @ Sonu Singh (A-8) was well aware that CPI
(Maoist) is a proscribed terrorist organization engaged
in numerous terrorist acts across the State and the
amounts funded by him to CPI (Maoist) would be used
for commission of such terrorist acts against the State.
Despite possessing this knowledge, he continued to
support the terrorist organization, personal prioritizing
and business interests rather than informing or
assisting the police or Law Enforcement Agencies.
VII. Further submission has been made that the appellant
firm and its active partners were also aware that they
– 13 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
were providing funds to CPI (Maoist). Further, Ravindra
Ganjhu (A- 14), with whom accused Sonu Singh (A-8)
and his firm M/S Santosh Construction had close
connections, is a hardcore Maoist and has been
implicated in over 127 criminal cases including murder,
attempted murder, robbery, extortion, and arson,
registered at various police stations.
VIII. The respondent-NIA has conducted thorough
investigation and collected sufficient prosecutable
evidence and submitted 2nd Supplementary Charge
Sheet, on 30.04.2021 before the Learned Special Judge,
NIA, Ranchi against 34 accused persons including
accused Mrityunjay Kumar @ Sonu Singh (A-8),
whereupon the learned Special took cognizance of the
offence and frame charges against the accused,
Mrityunjay Kumar @ Sony Singh of which trial has
started.
IX. Submission has been made that thus, it is evident that
there are sufficient materials available to arrive at a
conclusion or reasonable suspicion that accused
Mrityunjay Kumar @ Sony Singh [A-8], a key partner of
the appellant firm, namely, M/s Santosh Construction,
had been in conspiracy with top Maoist Cadres and had
been supporting and extending not only financial aid to
the banned terrorist organization but also has been
– 14 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
managing the terrorist fund by showing dubious entries
and investments in appellants firm’s accounts and
showing false payments in the books of account for the
purpose of making re-payments in cash. Such as Rs.
3.48 crores have been added in the capital account in
the names of Lal Bipin Nath Sahadeo, Amresh Kr.
Singh, Akhilesh Kr. Singh and Aruna Singh during FY
2017-18 and FY 2018-19 whereas these persons’ gross
total income in the same financial years was Rs. 1.14
crores only which was mostly from the appellant firm
M/S Santosh Construction in form of partners’
remuneration. There was huge difference between the
income to justify such huge infusion/addition of fund
in the capital account. Upon inquiry with these
partners, it was revealed that they do not have sources
to infuse/add such huge amounts in the
capital/business account.
X. The appellant firm and its partners have failed to prove
the source from where they generate funds to that
extent. As already mentioned above, from the analysis
of their individual accounts, no other source of income
is found. The current accounts of these partners have
been operated by the key partners accused Mrityunjay
Singh @ Sonu Singh (A-8) and the appellant Santosh
Kumar Singh. The investigation has established that
– 15 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
the accused Mrityunjay Kumar Sing @ Sonu Singh (A-8)
had a long association with the top Maoist cadres and
he was utilizing them to eliminate/reduce competition
in his business/contract work. During the recent
investigation in a connected case RC-
38/2020/NIA/DLI, it has been revealed that he used to
threated other civil contractors against participating in
the government bidding process with the help and
assistance of these armed Maoist cadres. Due to the
close association of accused Mrityunjay Kumar Singh @
Sonu Singh (A-8) with top cadres of CPI (Maoist), and
also the fact that he was also an accused of two more
murder cases, hence, threats were posed by him to
other contractors to refrain from participating in such
tenders/biddings. Moreover, CPI (Maoist) never caused
harm to the men, machineries and materials of the
appellant firm during 2012-21 since the accused
Mrityunjay Kumar Singh @ Sonu Singh (A-8) and other
partners of the appellant firms have direct nexus with
the proscribed organization, CPI (Maoist) and were
raising funds for the proscribed organization and also
progressing their own economic interest by this
collusive partnership.
XI. It has been submitted that all financial documents have
been scrutinized and examined thereafter a final
– 16 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
financial forensic analysis report has been prepared by
the engaged chartered accountant.
XII. Submission has been made that there are no allegations
levelled by the respondent-NIA about the payments
received from the government works, the question is
about the utilization of those amounts for terror
funding and frequent transfers from one account to
other accounts of the appellant’s firm and its partners
on multiple occasions and the immediately made
withdrawals to hide the actual source and its actual
use. Many same deposits and withdrawals were also
found in the bank account statements which raises
reasonable suspicion about the source of cash.
XIII. It has been submitted that it is evident from the analysis
of all bank accounts, ITRs, received amounts, payments
made, annual income, assets procured etc. the NIA has
found huge assets highly disproportionate to the
income (two times more) during the period of FY 2013-
14 to 2021-22.
XIV. Furthermore, the investigation has established that the
accused Mrityunjay Kumar Sing @ Sonu Singh (A-8)
had a long association with the top Maoist cadres and
he was utilizing them to eliminate/reduce competition
in his business/contract investigation in work.
Moreover, CPI (Maoist) never caused harm to the men,
– 17 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
machineries and materials of the appellant-firm during
2012-21 since the accused Mrityunjay Kumar Singh @
Sonu Singh (A-8) and other partners of the appellant
firms have direct nexus with the proscribed
organization, CPI (Maoist) and were raising funds for
the proscribed organization and also progressing their
own economic interest by this collusive partnership.
XV. Further submission has been made that a total of 124
Short-Term Deposit (STDR) accounts, also known as
FD accounts, containing balance of more that Rs. 10.77
crores in the name of accused Mrityunjay Kumar Singh
@ Sonu Singh (A-8) and his parents cum business
partners Santosh Kumar Singh and Pratima Devi
(appellants in the instant appeal), which have been
opened by transferring various amounts from the
appellant firm’s accounts of using the account balance
during FY 2013-14 to FY 2021-22 have been identified.
These accounts are among the 152 suspicious bank
accounts have which been attached u/s 25 (1) of the
UA (P) Act, 1967 as proceeds of terrorism.
XVI. It is pertinent to mention here that the bank
transactions such as cash deposits and account
transfer to and from the appellant and the partners’
bank accounts are highly suspicious.
XVII. The ITRs of the firm and all its partners have been
– 18 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
thoroughly studied by the engaged chartered
accountant who submitted a financial forensic analysis
report thereon on recently in connected the matter in
RC- 38/2020/NIA/DLI.
XVIII. The year-wise total value of the purchased commercial
vehicles, lands/buildings and other fixed assets of the
firm and partners are not matching with the books of
accounts (Bank statements) and schedules. It is
imperative that the facts have been manipulated in the
ITRs.
XIX. From the analysis, many discrepancies have been found
such as amounts of Rs. 2.52 crores and 2.05 crores
were paid to Bachaspati Sharma and his wife Vijoy
Laxmi Devi respectively between 2014-15 and 2019-20
towards subcontract payment but both the persons do
not have GST registration, and they denied having done
any subcontract work for M/S Santosh Construction.
As per the list given by the appellant firm, Bachaspati
Sharma and his wife Smt. Vijoy Laxmi Devi are not
subcontractors but the business records of the
appellant firm have been manipulated. As per the ITRs,
an amount of approx. Rs. 33 lakhs has been taken from
Bachaspati Sharma and his wife Smt. Vijoy Laxmi Devi
as unsecured loans during FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-
15, but the said Sh. Bachaspati Sharma denied giving
– 19 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
any unsecured loans to the appellant firm or its
partners by him or his wife. It was revealed that, Mr.
Bhachaspati Sharma is the actually the accountant of
the appellant firm.
XX. The appellants have failed to produce the list of and
verify the actual sundry creditors of the appellant firm,
or satisfy the investigation officer of the loan &
advances paid and unsecured loans taken, which were
mentioned in the ITRs/Balance Sheets/Schedules.
XXI. The analysis of the bank accounts and ITRs of the
appellant firm and its partners revealed that the
business records have been fabricated on back-dates
after the seizure had taken place. Furthermore, Rs.
3.48 crores were added in the capital account in the
names of Lal Bipin Nath Sahadeo, Amresh Kr. Singh,
Akhilesh Kr. Singh and Aruna Singh during FY 2017-
18 and FY 2018-19 whereas these persons’ gross total
income in the same financial years was Rs. 1.14 crores
only which was mostly from the appellant firm M/S
Santosh Construction in form of partners’
remuneration. There was a huge difference between
their income to justify such huge infusion/addition of
fund in the capital account.
XXII. Upon inquiry from these partners, it was revealed that
they do not have sources to infuse/add such huge
– 20 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
amounts in the capital/business account. Moreover,
differences between the amount withdrawn and
amounts added in the capital account are negative in
the case of these partners i.e. amount withdrawn are
very less that the amount added in the capital account
on their names. The appellant firm and its partners
have failed to prove the source from where they
generated funds to that extent. As already mentioned
above, from the analysis of their individual accounts,
no other source of income is found.
XXIII. Further submission has been made that the exercise
has been taken by the investigating agency in terms of
the power conferred under Section 25 of the Act, 1967
after giving proper opportunity to the appellant to
explain the source of the amount kept in the house to
the tune of Rs.2,64,42,000/-. The explanation has
been furnished whereby and whereunder justification
has been made about taking loan from different
persons by way of loan/credit but when the
investigating agency has investigated individually, the
person claimed to have given the money as loan/credit,
has specifically stated before the investigating agency
on the question being put that why the money has been
given in cash and not through cheque but no
satisfactory answer was provided. Therefore, as per
– 21 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
rule, the NIA proceeded, which was challenged before
the designated authority by way of filing representation,
which was rejected vide order dated 28.04.2023 and
confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated
27.05.2024, which is impugned in the present appeal.
XXIV. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the
appellants that there was no ascertainment of the fact
by the investigating agency as to in which account
amount, which was freezed after the order of
attachment, is said to be received is of terror funding or
represents the ‗proceeds of terrorism, submission has
been made by learned counsel for the respondent-NIA
that at this stage, the same cannot be scrutinized by
conducting a mini trial rather it is to be questioned by
the investigating officer during trial in evidence.
XXV. Learned counsel for the respondent-Investigating
Agency has submitted by referring to the order passed
by the designated authority that entire aspect of the
matter has been taken into consideration by the
designated authority which is evident from the face of
the said order and furthermore the appellate authority
has also considered the same.
XXVI. So far as the ground taken by learned counsel for the
appellant that accused-Mrityunjay Kumar Singh in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 380 of 2021 has been granted bail by
– 22 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
this Court on being came to the conclusion that prima
facie case under Section 43-D(5) of the U.A.(P) Act is
not made out against the appellant, submission has
been made that yard while granting bail is different to
that of granting relief of defreezing the freezed account
that allegedly was used for proceeds of terrorism, as in
the case at hand, there are ample evidence which says
that the transactions used in those accounts were used
for proceeds of terrorism, therefore, it is not a fit case
where any interference is required.
15. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, on the basis of the aforesaid fact,
has submitted that in the aforesaid background, the
designated authority has taken decision under Section 25(3)
of the Act, 1967 and the Special Court, after taking into
consideration the fact which has been surfaced in course of
investigation considering the said amount as proceeds of
terrorism or to be used in the terrorism, has declined to
interfere with the decision of the designated authority,
cannot be said to suffer from an error and requires no
interference by this Court.
Analysis
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
perused the documents available on record as also the
finding recorded by the learned Special Judge in the
impugned order.
– 23 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
17. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it fit and
proper to deal with some provisions of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 vis-à-vis National Investigation Agency
Act, 2008.
18. The U.A. (P) Act is now the primary anti-terrorist law in
force in India. It was enacted by Parliament in 1967. The
original Act was targeted at unlawful activities of a general
nature, and stringent provisions on terrorism were added
only later through various amendments starting in 2004,
following POTA’s repeal. It was subsequently amended in
2008 in response to the Mumbai terrorist attacks. The
amended UAPA incorporated the definition of a ―terrorist act‖
under Section 15 and created new terrorist offence. The most
recent amendments were made in 2013, which dealt largely
with the economic and financial aspects of terrorism. By
virtue of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) of Amendment Act,
2012, the ―terrorist act‖ has been defined under U.A.(P) Act,
1967 under Section 2(k) which reads as under :
“2(k) “terrorist act” has the meaning assigned to it in section
15, and the expressions “terrorism” and “terrorist” shall be
construed accordingly.”
19. The ―terrorist gang‖ has been defined under Section 2(l)
which reads as under :-
“(l) “terrorist gang” means any association, other than
terrorist organisation, whether systematic or otherwise,
which is concerned with, or involved in, terrorist act.”
– 24 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
20. The ―terrorist organization‖ has been defined under
Section 2(m) which reads as under :
―(m) ―terrorist organisation‖ means an organisation listed in
the Schedule or an organisation operating under the same
name as an organisation so listed.‖
21. The ―unlawful activity has been defined under Section
2(o) which reads as under :-
“(o) “unlawful activity”, in relation to an individual or association,
means any action taken by such individual or association (whether
by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs or by visible representation or otherwise),–
(i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any
ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or
the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or
which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about
such cession or secession; or
(ii) which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or
(iii) which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against
India.”
22. It is evident from the definition of ―terrorist organization‖
that it means an organisation listed in the Schedule or an
organisation operating under the same name as an
organisation so listed, meaning thereby, the applicability of
penal offence as mandated under the provision of U.A.(P)
Act, 1967 will only be applicable to a terrorist organization
which has been listed in Schedule-I.
23. The ―terrorist gang‖ means any association, other
than terrorist organisation, whether systematic or otherwise,
which is concerned with, or involved in, terrorist act.
– 25 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
24. If the definition of ―terrorist organization‖ as contained
under Section 2(m) and ―terrorist gang‖, as stipulated under
the provision of Section 2(l) are read conjointly, it would be
evident that if the organization has not been listed in
Schedule as contained in U.A.(P) Act, 1967, even then the
penal offence would be attracted against a gang which is
concerned with, or involved in, terrorist act.
25. The ―terrorist act‖ has been defined under Section 2(k)
has the meaning assigned to it in Section 15. Section 15
contains the activities which will be treated to be a ―terrorist
act‖. Section 15 reads as under :
“15. Terrorist act.–4(1) Whoever does any act with
intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity,
integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of
India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike
terror in the people or any section of the people in
India or in any foreign country,–
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive
substances or inflammable substances or firearms or
other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or
other chemicals or by any other substances (whether
biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a
hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever
nature to cause or likely to cause–
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to
the life of the community in India or in any foreign
country; or
(iiia) damage to, the monetary stability of India by way
of production or smuggling or circulation of high
quality counterfeit Indian paper currency, coin or of
any other material; or]
– 26 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
(iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or
in a foreign country used or intended to be used for
the defence of India or in connection with any other
purposes of the Government of India, any State
Government or any of their agencies; or
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of
criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of
any public functionary or attempts to cause death of
any public functionary; or
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and
threatens to kill or injure such person or does any
other act in order to compel the Government of India,
any State Government or the Government of a foreign
country or an international or inter-governmental
organisation or any other person to do or abstain from
doing any act; or commits a terrorist act.
[Explanation.–For the purpose of this sub-section,–
(a) ―public functionary‖ means the constitutional
authorities or any other functionary notified in the
Official Gazette by the Central Government as public
functionary;
(b) ―high quality counterfeit Indian currency‖ means
the counterfeit currency as may be declared after
examination by an authorised or notified forensic
authority that such currency imitates or compromises
with the key security features as specified in the Third
Schedule.]
(2) The terrorist act includes an act which constitutes
an offence within the scope of, and as defined in any of
the treaties specified in the Second Schedule.
26. As per the provision of Section 15, whoever has
acted with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity,
integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India
or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the
people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign
country would be covered under the definition of ―terrorist
– 27 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
act‖. This provision, therefore, stipulates that any activity
with an intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror will
come under the fold of terrorist act if done to threaten the
unity, integrity, security, sovereignty of India or economic
security, which has been inserted by way of Act 3 of 2013
with effect from 01.02.2013.
27. Section 17 provides punishment for raising funds for
terrorist act which reads as under :
―17. Punishment for raising funds for terrorist
act.–Whoever, in India or in a foreign country, directly
or indirectly, raises or provides funds or collects funds,
whether from a legitimate or illegitimate source, from
any person or persons or attempts to provide to, or
raises or collects funds for any person or persons,
knowing that such funds are likely to be used, in full
or in part by such person or persons or by a terrorist
organisation or by a terrorist gang or by an individual
terrorist to commit a terrorist act, notwithstanding
whether such funds were actually used or not for
commission of such act, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
five years but which may extend to imprisonment for
life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purpose of this section,–
(a) participating, organising or directing in any of the
acts stated therein shall constitute an offence;
(b) raising funds shall include raising or collecting or
providing funds through production or smuggling or
circulation of high quality counterfeit Indian currency;
and
(c) raising or collecting or providing funds, in any
manner for the benefit of, or, to an individual terrorist,
terrorist gang or terrorist organisation for the purpose
not specifically covered under section 15 shall also be
construed as an offence.
– 28 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
28. It is evident from the contents of Section 17 of the
Act, 1967 that whoever, in India or in a foreign country,
directly or indirectly, raises or provides funds or collects
funds, whether from a legitimate or illegitimate source, from
any person or persons or attempts to provide to, or raises or
collects funds for any person or persons, knowing that such
funds are likely to be used, in full or in part by such person
or persons or by a terrorist organisation or by a terrorist
gang or by an individual terrorist to commit a terrorist act,
notwithstanding whether such funds were actually used or
not for commission of such act, the same would be covered
under the aforesaid provision. Meaning thereby, raising of
funds directly or indirectly to commit a terrorist act by a
terrorist organization or by terrorist gang or by an individual
terrorist, irrespective of the fact whether this was actually
used for commission of such act, would be punishable under
Section 17.
29. Sub-section (c) of Section 17 of the Act, 1967 enlarges
the scope of the terrorist act since the same provides that
any act for the benefit of an individual terrorist, terrorist
gang or terrorist organisation even if not specifically covered
under Section 15 shall also be construed as an offence.
30. Section 22(A) of the Act, 1967 stipulates about the
provision for commission of offence by companies which
reads as under :
– 29 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
―22A. Offences by companies.–(1) Where an
offence under this Act has been committed by a
company, every person (including promoters of the
company) who, at the time the offence was committed,
was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company
for the conduct of the business of the company, as well
as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the
offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section
shall render any such person (including promoters)
liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he
proves that the offence was committed without his
knowledge or that he had exercised reasonable care to
prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), where an offence under this Act has been
committed by a company and it is proved that the
offence has been committed with the consent or
connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the
part of, any promoter, director, manager, secretary or
other officer of the company, such promoter, director,
manager, secretary or other officer shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable
to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,–
(a) ―company‖ means any body corporate and includes
a firm or other association of individuals; and
(b) ―director‖, in relation to a firm, means a partner in
the firm.‖
31. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that where
an offence under this Act has been committed by a company,
every person (including promoters of the company) who, at
the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and
was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the
business of the company, as well as the company, shall be
– 30 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly. Meaning
thereby, the main ingredient for attracting the aforesaid
provision will be in the case when the offence has been
committed by a company and in those circumstances,
whoever is connected with the affairs of the company shall
be deemed to be guilty of the offence.
32. Section 25 of the Act, 1967 confers power upon the
investigating officer and designated authority that if there is
a reason to believe that any property in relation to which an
investigation is being conducted, represents proceeds of
terrorism, he shall, with the prior approval in writing of the
Director General of the Police of the State seize such
property.
33. Sub-Section (3) thereof provides power to the designated
authority either to confirm or revoke the order of seizure or
attachment so issued within a period of sixty days
34. For ready reference, Section 25 of the Act, 1967 is
quoted hereunder as:
25. Powers of investigating officer and Designated
Authority and appeal against order of Designated
Authority.–
(1) If an officer investigating an offence committed under
Chapter IV or Chapter VI, has reason to believe that any
property in relation to which an investigation is being
conducted, represents proceeds of terrorism, he shall,
with the prior approval in writing of the Director General
of the Police of the State in which such property is
situated, make an order seizing such property and
– 31 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
where it is not practicable to seize such property, make
an order of attachment directing that such property shall
not be transferred or otherwise dealt with except with
the prior permission of the officer making such order, or
of the Designated Authority before whom the property
seized or attached is produced and a copy of such order
shall be served on the person concerned.
(2) The investigating officer shall duly inform the
Designated Authority within forty-eight hours of the
seizure or attachment of such property.
(3) The Designated Authority before whom the seized or
attached property is produced shall either confirm or
revoke the order of seizure or attachment so issued
within a period of sixty days from the date of such
production: Provided that an opportunity of making a
representation by the person whose property is being
seized or attached shall be given.
(4) In the case of immovable property attached by the
investigating officer, it shall be deemed to have been
produced before the Designated Authority, when the
investigating officer notifies his report and places it at
the disposal of the Designated Authority.
(5) The investigating officer may seize and detain any
cash to which this Chapter applies if he has reasonable
grounds for suspecting that–
(a) it is intended to be used for the purposes of
terrorism; or (b) it forms the whole or part of the
resources of a terrorist organisation: Provided that the
cash seized under this sub-section by the investigating
officer shall be released within a period of forty-eight
hours beginning with the time when it is seized unless
the matter involving the cash is before the Designated
Authority and such Authority passes an order allowing
its retention beyond forty-eight hours. Explanation.–For
the purposes of this sub-section, “cash” means–
(a) coins or notes in any currency;
(b) postal orders;
(c) traveller‟s cheques;
– 32 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
[(ca) credit or debit cards or cards that serve a similar
purpose;]
(d) banker‟s drafts; and
(e) such other monetary instruments as the Central
Government or, as the case may be, the State
Government may specify by an order made in writing.
(6) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the
Designated Authority may prefer an appeal to the court
within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of
the order, and the court may either confirm the order of
attachment of property or seizure so made or revoke
such order and release the property.
35. Section 33 thereof pertains to forfeiture of property
of certain persons which provides that where any person is
accused of an offence under Chapter IV or Chapter VI, it
shall be open to the court to pass an order that all or any of
the properties, movable or immovable or both, belonging to
him, shall, during the period of such trial, be attached, if not
already attached under this Chapter. For ready reference,
the provision of Section 33 is referred hereunder as :-
―33. Forfeiture of property of certain persons.–(1)
Where any person is accused of an offence under
Chapter IV or Chapter VI, it shall be open to the court
to pass an order that all or any of the properties,
movable or immovable or both, belonging to him, shall,
during the period of such trial, be attached, if not
already attached under this Chapter.
(2) Where a person has been convicted of any
offence punishable under Chapter IV or Chapter VI,
the court may, in addition to awarding any
punishment, by order in writing, declare that any
property, movable or immovable or both, belonging to
the accused and specified in the order, shall stand
forfeited to the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be, free from all
– 33 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
encumbrances.
(3) Where any person is accused of an offence
concerning high quality counterfeit Indian currency,
the court may pass an order directing attachment or
forfeiture, as the case may be, of property equivalent to
the value of such high quality counterfeit Indian
currency involved in the offence including the face
value of such currency which are not defined to be of
high quality, but are part of the common seizure along
with the high quality counterfeit Indian currency.
(4) Where a person is accused of an offence
punishable under Chapter IV or Chapter VI, the court
may pass an order directing attachment or forfeiture,
as the case may be, of property equivalent to or the
value of the proceeds of terrorism involved in the
offence.
(5) Where any person is accused of an offence
under Chapter IV or Chapter VI, it shall be open to the
court to pass an order that all or any of the property,
movable or immovable or both, belonging to him shall,
where the trial under the Act cannot be concluded on
account of the death of the accused or being declared a
proclaimed offender or for any other reason, be
confiscated on the basis of material evidence produced
before the court.‖
36. The reference of the National Investigation Agency Act,
2008 is also required to be made since further investigation
has been directed to be conducted by the NIA in the instant
case.
37. The NIA Act, 2008 has come into being in order to
constitute an investigation agency at the national level to
investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty,
security and integrity of India, security of State, friendly
relations with foreign States and offences under Acts enacted
– 34 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions
and resolutions of the United Nations, its agencies and other
international organisations and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.
38. The constitutional validity of the NIA Act was challenged
before the Bombay High Court by an accused in the
Malegaon bomb blast case on the ground of lack of
legislative competence of Parliament to enact such law. The
Bombay High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the
NIA Act and while doing so, it has been held that the NIA has
been created as an investigating agency at the national level
to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the
sovereignty, security and integrity of India and other matters
such as friendly relations with the foreign States. This was
not akin to setting up of a police force.
39. Further, the court concluded that Parliament had the
legislative competence to enact the NIA Act and the
Parliament can enact the laws in matters not covered under
the list.
40. The court looked at several entries that would enable
the Parliament to enact such a law from List-I that allows the
Parliament to set-up CBI and two of the concurrent lists
dealing with the criminal law and criminal procedure
respectively.
– 35 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
41. Further, the court has held that since the Parliament is
not incompetent for enacting law for the police force in the
union territories it could also set up and agency as NIA to
deal with the offences which include offences that are within
the domain of the Centre related to hijacking and weapons of
mass destruction.
42. Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008 contains provision
pertaining to investigation of Scheduled offences which reads
as under :
―6. Investigation of Scheduled Offences.–(1) On
receipt of information and recording thereof under
section 154 of the Code relating to any Scheduled
Offence the officer-in-charge of the police station shall
forward the report to the State Government forthwith.
(2) On receipt of the report under sub-section (1), the
State Government shall forward the report to the
Central Government as expeditiously as possible.
(3) On receipt of report from the State Government, the
Central Government shall determine on the basis of
information made available by the State Government
or received from other sources, within fifteen days from
the date of receipt of the report, whether the offence is
a Scheduled Offence or not and also whether, having
regard to the gravity of the offence and other relevant
factors, it is a fit case to be investigated by the Agency.
(4) Where the Central Government is of the opinion
that the offence is a Scheduled Offence and it is a fit
case to be investigated by the Agency, it shall direct
the Agency to investigate the said offence.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section,
if the Central Government is of the opinion that a
Scheduled Offence has been committed which is
required to be investigated under this Act, it may, suo
motu, direct the Agency to investigate the said offence.
– 36 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
(6) Where any direction has been given under sub-
section (4) or sub-section (5), the State Government
and any police officer of the State Government
investigating the offence shall not proceed with the
investigation and shall forthwith transmit the relevant
documents and records to the Agency.
(7) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that
till the Agency takes up the investigation of the case, it
shall be the duty of the officer-in-charge of the police
station to continue the investigation.
43. It has been provided in the provision of Section 6
that on receipt of information and recording thereof under
section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to any
Scheduled Offence the officer-in-charge of the police station
shall forward the report to the State Government forthwith
and on receipt of report from the State Government, the
Central Government shall determine on the basis of
information made available by the State Government or
received from other sources, within fifteen days from the date
of receipt of the report, whether the offence is a Scheduled
Offence or not and also whether, having regard to the gravity
of the offence and other relevant factors, it is a fit case to be
investigated by the Agency. Where the Central Government is
of the opinion that the offence is a Scheduled Offence and it
is a fit case to be investigated by the Agency, it shall direct
the Agency to investigate the said offence.
44. The Central Government has also got power in view of
the provision of Sub-Section (5) or Sub-Section (6) that if the
Central Government is of the opinion that a Scheduled
– 37 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
Offence has been committed which is required to be
investigated under this Act, it may, suo motu, direct the
Agency to investigate the said offence. In such
circumstances, the State Government and any police officer
of the State Government investigating the offence shall not
proceed with the investigation and shall forthwith transmit
the relevant documents and records to the Agency.
45. Section 7 provides power to transfer investigation
to the State Government as also Section 8 provides power to
investigate connected offences.
46. Section 21 provides provision for appeal whereunder an
appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order, not
being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the High
Court both on facts and on law. Therefore, in pursuance to
the provision of Section 21, the appellate court is to exercise
its appellate power both on facts and law.
Issues
47. In the background of the facts/legal position stated
hereinabove, the issues which require consideration are –
(i) Whether the order of the designated authority
rejecting the representation filed by the appellants under
section 25(3) of the UP(A) Act, 1967, on being prima facie
satisfied that 152 bank account including Special Term
Deposit Receipt (STDR) account and one Mutual Fund
Account etc. containing the total amount of Rs.
– 38 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
20,65,20,496.41 represents the „proceeds of terrorism‟,
confirmed the order of attachment, can be said to suffer
from an error?
(ii) Whether order passed by the learned Special Judge
declining to interfere with the order dated 27.05.2024
passed by the designated authority suffers from an error?
48. Both the issues since are interlinked with each
other, therefore, the same are being answered together.
49. The fact of this case is that initially Chandwa P.S. Case
No.158 of 2019 was instituted in which charge-sheet has
also been submitted but subsequent thereto, the Central
Government, in exercise of power conferred under Section
6(5) of the NIA Act, 2008, has taken over the investigation in
order to hand over it to the NIA.
50. The NIA has started the investigation by re-registering
the case being RC 25/2020/NIA/DLI dated 24.06.2020
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 353 and 379 of the
Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17(i)
& (ii) of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 10, 13,
17 and 18 of Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967 against
18 named accused persons and others.
51. In course of investigation, the role of son of the
appellant no. 2-Santosh Kumar Singh, namely Mrityunjay
Kumar Singh (A-8) emerged since his involvement has been
acknowledged that since 2012, he was in contact with
– 39 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
Maowadi-Ravindra Ganjhu, a banned terrorist organization,
and he used to provide financial assistance to proscribed
terrorist organization.
52. Immediately after the appellant has been made an
accused, the house was searched and in course thereof cash
amounting to Rs.2,64,42,000/- was recovered and seized.
53. After conclusion of the investigation supplementary
charge sheet was submitted by NIA on 30.04.2021, inter-alia
arraying one of the partners of the Firm namely Mrityunjay
Kumar Singh as an accused.
54. However, when M/s Santosh Construction approached
the banks, namely, Sate Bank of India and Punjab National
Bank, it came to know that as per the instructions of
National Investigation Agency, the entire accounts of M/s
Santosh Construction have been frozen as the National
Investigation Agency is investigating the case bearing
RC25/2020/NIA/DLI in this regard. Thereafter, M/s
Santosh Construction was served with a letter by the banks
regarding the freezing of the bank accounts on 08.02.2021
and 11.02.2021, which was challenged by filing Writ Petition
bearing W.P.(Cr.) No. 205/2021 with a prayer for
defreezing/unfreezing the bank account of M/s Santosh
Construction. The said writ petition was disposed vide order
dated 02.08.2022 with a liberty to avail appropriate remedy
as available under the law.
– 40 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
55. Aggrieved thereof, M/s Santosh Construction preferred
S.L.P. bearing S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9998/2022 before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court which was disposed of vide order dated
03.01.2023 observing that let the investigating agency under
the 1967 Act complete the Investigation with respect to bank
accounts in question/transactions in question with a period
of two months from today and thereafter may take
appropriate steps/actions as per Section 25 of 1967 Act.
56. In the light of order dated 03.01.2023, passed in
S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9998/2022 the respondent authority
proceeded under section- 25 (1) of the UAPA Act and issued
order of property Attachment on 03.03.2023. Thereafter vide
its order dated 16.03.2023, the respondent authority
proceeded under section 25 (3) of the UAP Act and allowed
10 days’ time from the date of issue of this order, for filing
representation before Designated Authority.
57. Pursuant thereto, on 23.03.2023 representation was
filed in terms of order dated 16.03.2023 by the applicant
firms and its partners before the Designated Authority,
which was rejected vide order dated 28.04.2023, against
which, Criminal Appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 96 of 2023,
under Section 25(6) of U.A.P.A. Act was preferred by the
appellants before the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, which was
rejected vide order dated 27.05.2024. Hence, the present
appeal.
– 41 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
58. The ground under which the order passed by the
appellate authority [Special Judge] has been challenged is
that the learned court below has failed to take into
consideration that the NIA has not been able to prove that
the seized accounts is proceeds of terrorism, therefore, the
action taken under Section 25 of Act 1967 is bad in law.
Further ground has been taken that the appellants have
disclosed the source of money in seized/attached bank
accounts but without considering these facts into
consideration the impugned orders have been passed.
59. Further, there is no bank transaction with any of the
accused, except Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, who was erstwhile
partner of M/s Santosh Construction and no money has
been received from said Mrityunjay Kumar Singh in
seized/attached bank accounts and even no material has
been found by the NIA to justify the claim of proceeds of
terrorism in its charge-sheet.
60. But there is no active consideration of these facts by the
designated authority or by the appellate authority as such
impugned order is perverse in law.
61. Further, ground has been taken that case of the
prosecution is based upon the cash received from the house
of said Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, but, the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 30.01.2023 in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No. 380 of 2021, on being come to the conclusion that prima
– 42 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
facie case under Section 43-D(5) of the U.A.(P) Act is not
made out against the appellant granted bail. But, no
consideration has been made to these facts and impugned
order has been passed.
62. On perusal of the record, it is evident that during
investigation and on the basis of confession of co-accused
persons search was conducted on 10.10.2020 at eight
different places wherefrom large quantity of incriminating
materials and documents were recovered. Further, during
search in the house of accused Mritunjay Singh [A-8]
unaccounted money Rs.2,64,42000/- and other
incriminating materials were seized. On being asked about
source of money recovered from the house of said Mritunjay
Singh [A-8], it was revealed that the money was income from
vehicle pertaining to M/s Santosh Construction, Santosh
Kumar Singh and Mritunjay Singh A-8 had withdrawn the
money from the bank account of M/s Santosh Construction
and sum of money were taken as loan from their family
members and business entities.
63. But after verification by the CIO, who examined
seventeen persons from whom appellant firm had taken loan.
fourteen persons have stated that they had given money as
loan credit. But, on being asked and as to why they had
given money in cash and not through cheque, no satisfactory
answer was provided.
– 43 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
64. One Vachaspati Sharma accountant of M/s Santosh
construction has denied that he has given cash loan
Rs.1,95,000/- to either Santosh Kumar Singh or his son
Mrityunjay Kumar Singh. Another person Yogendra Kumar
Singh stated that Mrityunjay Kumar Singh stated that
Mrityunjay Kumar Singh has never asked for any loan nor
he had given any loan to him. However, he gave
Rs.19,8000/- to his daughter namely Priya Singh wife of
Manish Kumar another son of appellant. One person Bhola
Khan contractor denied that he had given cash Rs.19,2000/-
as loan either to petitioner/ appellant Santosh Kumar Singh
or Mrityunjay Kumar Singh.
65. The investigating officer, during investigation verified the
ITR [income tax return] and capital account of appellant M/s
Santosh construction and its partners, wherefrom it is
evident that Rupees 1.15 crores were infused in the account
of M/s Santosh construction as capital on behalf of
appellants Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Amresh Kumar Singh and
Lal Bipin Nath Sahdev, all are partners of M/s Santosh
construction in the assessment year 2019-20; and Rs.3.32
crore were infused in the account of firm as capital of the
partners in the assessment year 2018-19, it is surfaced that
huge amount was shown as expenses under the head sub-
contractors.
66. On examination of the sub-contractors namely
– 44 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
Vachaspati Sharma, Bhola Khan and Wasim have denied
work as sub-contractors and not paid any money.
Investigation has also revealed that Amresh Kumar Singh
had 5% share in M/s Santosh construction. He invested
capital of Rs.94,80,500/- in the account of the firm from
year 2018-19 to 2019-20 on the analysis of the Individual
ITR Amresh Kumar Singh it is revealed to investigating
officer that gross total income of Amresh Kumar Singh is 33
lakhs from assessment year 2018-19 to 2019-20, most of the
income comes from M/s Santosh construction when he was
asked about capital infusion about 95 lakh he could not give
satisfactory answer.
67. Further when the role of Akhilesh Kumar Singh was
investigated by the investigating officer, who found that 10%
share in partnership of M/s Santosh construction belongs to
him. He infused capital of Rs.1.17 crores in the account of
company from assessment year 2018-19 to 2019-20. On the
analysis of the instant ITR of Akhilesh Kumar Singh it is
surfaced that his gross total income in the assessment year
2018-19 and 2019-20 was Rs.35 lakhs which also mostly
come from the M/s Santosh construction and he also could
not explain properly. In the same manner, Lal Bipin Nath
Sahdeo one of the partners of Santosh construction who got
5% share in the appellant firm infused Rs.93 lakhs in the
account of the firm in the year 2018-19 to 2019-20.
– 45 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
68. On analysis of the individual ITR by CIO, it was found
that his income was Rs.30 lakhs from the year 2018-19 to
2019-20 and most of the part of the income comes from M/s
Santosh Construction and he did not explain properly.
69. During investigation it was also found that huge amount
was deposited in the bank account of the M/s Santosh
construction and also in the bank account of his partners
and money was transferred from one bank account of the
firm or partners to other accounts of the firm and partners
and several other accounts of the various persons and on the
request of CIO six Bank accounts of appellant Firm have
been frozen.
70. From the above factual aspects, it is evident during
search in the house of accused Mritunjay Singh [A-8]
unaccounted money Rs.2,64,42000/- and other
incriminating materials were seized and on being asked
about source of money though it was revealed that the
money was income from vehicle pertaining to M/s Santosh
Construction, Santosh Kumar Singh and Mritunjay Singh
and some amount of money were taken as loan from their
family members and business entities but the same was
found to be incorrect and false statement.
71. The investigation further reveals that Mritunjay Kumar
Singh was helping operatives of CPI Maoist financially and
was involved in funding banned terrorist organisation CPI
– 46 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
(Maoist) and, as such, the nature of allegation which has
been emerged in course of investigation of cooperating with
the Maoist, a banned terrorist organization, and the
explanation so furnished justifying the retention has not
been found corroborated by the investigating agency, since
the persons from whom the loan said to have been taken
have denied to have given such loan.
72. Further, even the investigating agency has considered
the income tax returns of the appellant(s) and other related
persons and does not find satisfactory entry therein and was
not explained properly by the concerned.
73. For the reasons aforesaid, the bank accounts of the
firm, namely M/s Santosh Construction was freezed, which
was challenged by the appellant firm being WP (Cr.) No. 205
of 2021 with a prayer for defreezing/unfreezing the bank
account, which was disposed of with liberty to avail remedy
as available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against
which, the appellant moved the Supreme Court by filing SLP
(Crl) No. 9998 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order
dated 03.01.2023.
74. In the light of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the respondent authority proceeded under section- 25
(1) of the UAPA Act and thereafter vide order dated
16.03.2023, the respondent-authority proceeded under
section 25 (3) of the UAPA Act and allowed 10 days’ time for
– 47 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
filing representation, before Designated Authority. Pursuant
thereto, on 23.03.2023 representation was filed which was
rejected vide order dated 28.04.2023, against which, the
appellants preferred Criminal Appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 96
of 2023, which was also rejected vide order dated
27.05.2024.
75. This Court has gone through the order dated
27.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge in Cr.
Appeal No. 96 of 2023 and found therefrom that the learned
court has taken note of the fact that from the order of
attachment of bank dated 03.03.2023, it is evident that the
CIO has found the seized amount to be ‗proceeds of terrorism’
that is deposited in the 152 bank accounts including STDR
accounts and one mutual fund account (SBI dynamic bond
fund regular growth, unit balance Rs.15,15,33,003.921/-
and SBI balance advantage fund regular growth unit balance
9,99,950.002/- as per details mentioned in annexure A
containing total amount of Rs.20,65,20,496.41/- (Rupees
twenty crore, sixty five lakh, twenty thousand four hundred
ninety six and 41 paise) of the firm M/s Santosh construction
chandwa Latehar and its partners Sri Santosh Kumar Singh,
accused Mrityunjay Kumar Singh @ Mrityunjay Kumar, Smt
Pratima Devi, Smt Aruna Devi, Sri Akhilesh Kuamr Singh, sri
Amresh Kumar Singh and Sri Lal Bipin Nath and as such
seized/ attached under provision 65(1) of UA(P) Act.
– 48 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
76. It further appears that the seizure so made was
presented before the designated authority who upon perusal
of the explanation so furnished has found the explanation to
be not satisfactory, has affirmed the seizure.
77. Thus, the conduct of the appellant, discrepancies in the
bank accounts, non-disclosure of the source of income,
fabrication of ITRs, books of account and other business
records, non-production of all the requires documents,
connection with the members of banned terrorist
organisation and deal to provide funds to the CPI(moist)
frequently have stated to be sufficient reasons to believe and
amount held in 152 bank accounts of appellant M/s Santosh
construction appears to be proceeds of terrorism.
78. The learned designated authority, based upon the
aforesaid facts has reached to the conclusion that cash
amount Rs.20,65,20,496.41/- prima facie represents
proceeds of terrorism as such rejected the representation
filed by the appellants under Section 25(3) of the UA(P) Act,
1967 on being prima facie satisfied that 152 bank accounts
including sTDR and mutual fund accounts represents the
proceeds of terorism, which has been affirmed by the
appellate authority i.e., AJC-XVI-cum-Special Judge, NIA,
Ranchi vide impugned order dated 27.05.2024 in Cr. Appeal
No. 96 of 2023.
79. From the discussions made herein above, it is evident
– 49 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
that the amount of cash amounting to Rs.2,64,42,000/- has
been seized and, as such, the investigating officer has prima
facie considered the said amount to be the proceeds of the
terrorism on the basis of the definition of Section 2(g) of the
Act, 1967 which defines the proceeds of terrorism, which
means all kinds of properties which have been derived or
obtained from commission of any terrorist act or have been
acquired through funds traceable to a terrorist act,
irrespective of person in whose name such proceeds are
standing or in whose possession they are found or any
property which is being used, or is intended to be used, for a
terrorist act or for the purpose of an individual terrorist or a
terrorist gang or a terrorist organization.
80. It needs to refer herein that the very purport and object
of the Act is to deal with the menace of terrorism and,
therefore, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act although is
of 1967 but from time to time amendments have been
incorporated by making insertions of various provisions like
Section 15 having been inserted by virtue of the Act 35 of
2008 with effect from 31.12.2008 defining therein the
terrorist act.
81. Likewise, the punishment for raising funds for terrorist
act has also been inserted by virtue of the Act 3 of 2013
making it effective with effect from 01.02.2013 whereby and
whereunder it has been provided that whoever, in India or in
– 50 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
a foreign country, directly or indirectly, raises or provides
funds or collects funds, whether from a legitimate or
illegitimate source, from any person or persons or attempts to
provide to, or raises or collects funds for any person or
persons, knowing that such funds are likely to be used, in
full or in part by such person or persons or by a terrorist
organisation or by a terrorist gang or by an individual
terrorist to commit a terrorist act, notwithstanding whether
such funds were actually used or not for commission of such
act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
82. The aforesaid provision, thus, suggests that for any
reason whatsoever, if the funds are being raised for terrorist
act, the same will be covered under the provision of Section
17 of the Act, 1967.
83. The Section 25(1) provides power to the investigating
officer whereby and whereunder if the investigating officer
has reason to believe that any property in relation to which
an investigation is being conducted, represents proceeds of
terrorism, he shall, with the prior approval in writing of the
Director General of the Police of the State, make an order of
attachment directing that such property shall not be
transferred or otherwise dealt with except with the prior
permission of the officer making such order.
– 51 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
84. The insertion of the word ―reason to believe‖ is having
paramount importance. Such word assume importance by
conferment of power upon the investigating officer that if any
investigation is being conducted and if the investigating
agency has reason to believe that any property in relation to
which an investigation is being conducted represents
proceeds of terrorism, the same is available to be seized by
the investigating agency.
85. At this juncture this Court deems it fit and proper to
discuss the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is no active consideration of the
aforesaid discussed facts and the settled proposition of law as
referred above by the designated authority or by the appellate
authority as such impugned order is perverse in law.
86. The definition of perversity has been taken note of in the
judgment rendered in Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 406
at para 27, which is quoted hereunder: (SCC p, 217, para 27)
27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various
dictionaries in the following manner:
1. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English,
6th Edn. “Perverse.–Showing deliberate determination to
behave in a way that most people think is wrong,
unacceptable or unreasonable.”
2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,
International Edn. Perverse.–Deliberately departing from
what is normal and reasonable.
3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English,
1998 Edn. Perverse.–Law (of a verdict) against the weight of
evidence or the direction of the Judge on a point of law.
– 52 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
4. The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English
Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse.–Purposely
deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion;
wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant.
5. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, 4th
Edn. “Perverse.–A perverse verdict may probably be defined
as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is
altogether against the evidence.”
87. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in yet another
judgment rendered in Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police
(1999) 2 SCC 10 has held under para 10 which reads as
under : (SCC p. 14, para 10):
10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained
between the decisions which are perverse and those which
are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence
which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person
would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is
some evidence on record which is acceptable and which
could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the
conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the
findings would not be interfered with.”
88. Further, the meaning of ―perverse‖ has been examined
in Excise Commr. v. Gopi Nath & Sons wherein, at para 7,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : (SCC p.
317, para 7)
“7.– It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at
by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into
consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so
outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of
irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the
finding is rendered infirm in law.”
89. Thus, it is evident that the perversity means if a decision
is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly
– 53 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the
order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on
record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon,
howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not
be treated as perverse and the findings would not be
interfered with.
90. Further, the meaning of ―consideration‖ is
the active application of mind of the factual aspect, as per the
definition of ―consideration‖ given by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in LIC v. A. Masilamani (2013) 6 SCC 530, wherein,
at para 19, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
under: (SCC p. 537, para 19)
“19. The word „consider‟ is of great significance. The
dictionary meaning of the same is, „to think over‟, „to regard
as‟, or „deem to be‟. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the
effect that there must be active application of mind. In other
words, the term „consider‟ postulates consideration of all
relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by
the statutory authority should reflect intense application of
mind with reference to the material available on record. The
order of the authority itself should reveal such application of
mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the
language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed
to affirm its order.”
91. From the interpretation made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court with respect to meaning of ―consideration‖, it would be
evident that consideration can only be said to be
– 54 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
proper consideration if there is active application of mind.
92. Herein, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the
appellant is an accused under Sections 10, 13, 17 and 18 of
Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, 1967 and in course of
investigation when the house of the appellant has been
searched, huge amount of Rs.2,64,42,000/- has been
recovered and seized and, as such, it cannot be said that the
investigating agency, while conducting the search in the
house of the appellant, was having no reason to believe about
the aforesaid huge amount in cash representing as proceeds
of terrorism and if in that circumstances the said amount has
been seized, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.
93. It is evident from the paragraphs of the counter affidavit
that in compliance, with the directions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed in SLP (Crl) No. 09998/2022 dated
03.01.2023, the Respondent-NIA has conducted the
investigation into the bank accounts in question with the
assistance of a chartered accountant for this sole purpose.
From the analysis of these bank accounts as well as the ITRs
of the appellant firm M/S Santosh Construction and its
partners, NIA has found huge assets highly disproportionate
to the income during the period from FY 2013-14 to 2021-22
94. It is further evident that, after considering all the facts
and evidence collected during the course of investigation, NIA
came to the conclusion/reasonable suspicion that there are
– 55 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
enough reasons to believe that the whole or part of the
balance amount of Rs 20,65,20,496.41/- found in the 152
bank accounts including STDR accounts and 01 SBI Mutual
Fund folio account are part of ―proceeds of terrorism‖ and
accordingly have been attached under Section 25 (1) of the
UA(P) Act, 1967 on 03.03.2023 and order of attachment has
been duly served to all concerned.
95. Thereafter, Designated Authority (as defined under
section 2(1)(e) of the UA(P) Act, 1967) vide order dated
16.03.2023 had given an opportunity to the appellant firm
M/S Santosh Construction and its partners, in terms of
proviso to section 25 (3) of the UA (P) Act, 1967 for making
representation on the bank accounts attached by the NIA.
Accordingly, the appellant firm M/S Santosh Construction
and its partners had filed representation on 23.03.2023. The
Designated Authority sought comments on the said
representation from NIA and accordingly, NIA submitted its
reply to the representation filed by the appellant firm and its
partners before the Authority. After taking into Designated
account all materials on records, and on being prima facie
satisfied that the property attached by the Investigation
Officer under section 25 (1) of the UA (P) Act, 1967 represents
proceeds of terrorism as defined under section 2(1)(g) of the
UA (P) Act, 1967, the Designated Authority confirmed the
order of attachment made by the Investigating Officer, in full
– 56 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
accordance with section 25 (3) of the UA(P) Act, 1967 vide
order dated 28.04.2023.
96. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid facts that the
Designated Authority has given full opportunity to the
petitioner to put forward its grievances and consequently
taking into consideration the evidence collected by the NIA
has confirmed the order of attachment. Since it is apparent
from the order dated 28.04.2023 that the Designated
Authority while considering the order of attachment has given
due weightage to all relevant facts as well as law, thus this
Court is of the view that there is no perversity in the order
confirming the attachment.
97. Further Learned Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi vide order
dated 27.05.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 96 of 2023 arising
out of Special (NIA) Case No. 02 of 2020 Designated Authority
stating that the Designated Authority’s order did not suffer
from any infirmities and was made with due application of a
judicial mind. The appellate court has taken note that the
appellant firm and its partners have failed to prove the source
from where they generate funds to that extent and from the
analysis of their Individual accounts, no other source of
income is found. The current accounts of these partners have
operated by the key partners accused Mrityunjay Singh @
Sonu Singh (A-8) and the appellant Santosh Kumar Singh.
The investigation has established that the accused
– 57 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
Mrityunjay Kumar Sing @ Sonu Singh (A-B) had a long
association with the top Maoist cadres and he was utilizing
competition them to eliminate/reduce in his
business/contract work.
98. Further, Section 33 of the Act, 1967 is also having
implication in the facts and circumstances of the case by
which power has been conferred upon the court to pass an
order that all or any of the properties, movable or immovable
or both, belonging to him, shall, during the period of such
trial, be attached, if not already attached under this Chapter,
meaning thereby, that if in course of investigation any
property, moveable or immoveable, has not been seized, it
can be seized even in course of trial under the provision of
Section 33 by the learned trial court.
99. The provision as contained under Section 33 of the Act,
1967 does imply that if there is reason to believe that it is
proceeds of the terrorism, the same can either be seized in
course of investigation by the investigating agency under the
provision of Section 25 or in course of trial by the court
under the provision of Section 33 of the Act, 1967 i.e., for the
purpose of not allowing the said proceeds to be used in the
terrorist activities so as to achieve the very object and intent
of the Act.
100. The argument, which has been advanced that there is
no segregation of the account, which is said to be used for
– 58 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
terror funding or represents the ‗proceeds of terrorism, and
having no exercise having been taken in this regard by the
designated authority or the appellate authority, as such the
order needs to be interfered with, this Court is not in
agreement with the said argument reason being that the
question of segregating of the amount as has been kept in the
152 suspicious bank accounts which has been freezed, is
concerned, the same cannot be looked into at this stage,
rather, by appreciating the documents it is to be looked into
at the time of trial by putting specific question to the
investigating officer.
101. Further, if such endeavor will be taken either at the
appellate stage or at this stage before this Court, it will
amount to conducting mini trial, which is not permissible in
the eye of law.
102. This Court, on consideration of the factual aspect as per
the discussion made hereinabove and after going through the
contents of the order impugned, has found therefrom that the
learned Special Judge has considered the fact which has
been brought to its notice by the investigating agency
showing the culpability of the appellant under the provision
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the
explanation so furnished has not been found to be supported
by the persons concerned from whom the amount said to
have been taken as loan/credit by the appellant and further,
– 59 – Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024
the said amount has also not found in corroboration with the
Income Tax Returns and if in that circumstances the learned
Special Judge has refused to interfere with the decision of the
designated authority dated 23.06.2022 in order to maintain
the object and intent of the Act, depending upon the outcome
of the trial, the same, according to our considered view,
cannot be said to suffer from any perversity and further the
appellate court has taken care of each and every aspect of the
matter by actively considered all the aforesaid discussed fact
while affirming the order of designated authority.
103. Accordingly, and for the reason stated hereinabove, this
Court is of the view that the order requires no interference.
104. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.)
Alankar/ A.F.R
- 60 - Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 850 of 2024