Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, May 31: The High Court has dismissed the appeal challenging the order of trial court whereby time was extended to prosecution for filing the supplementary charge sheet against the accused involved in narco-terror activities.
The appeal along with bail application was filed by the accused Riyaz Ahmad Hajam and another accused on the ground that the charge sheet against them insofar as offences under the ULA(P) Act were concerned, had not been filed within the statutory period of 180 days from the date of their custody up to 15th December 2021, nor even within the extended period of 15 days ending on 29th December 2021. On that basis, they claimed entitlement to bail by default.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar after hearing the prosecution counsel Mohsin Qadri (Sr. AAG) concluded that the appellant-accused are not only charged with offences under Sections 8/21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, but are also accused of offences punishable under Sections 17, 18, 23 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
“The trial Court, being vested with jurisdiction as a Sessions Court and also designated as a Special Court for UAPA matters, was fully competent to extend the period of investigation in terms of Section 36A of the NDPS Act”, read the judgment.
The court recorded that the UAPA specifically provides that where the investigation cannot be completed within a period of 90 days, the Court may, upon being satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons necessitating continued detention, extend the period of investigation up to 180 days. Thus, the statute itself contemplates an enlarged period for completion of investigation in offences falling under the UAPA.
The facts giving rise to the case in hand are that, on 18th June 2021, a Maruti Swift car was intercepted within the precincts of Police Station Uri. During the search of the vehicle, two magazines of Chinese pistols, ten live rounds of Chinese pistols, five grenades, five packets of contraband heroin and cash amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs were recovered.
At the relevant time, the vehicle was occupied by three persons, namely, Sajad Anzar Shah, Sharafat Khan and Shahid Hussain. This recovery led to the registration of FIR No. 63/2021 under Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act, Sections 8/21/29 of the NDPS Act, and Sections 18 and 23 of the UA(P) Act.
On the basis of the disclosures made during investigation, other co-accused including appellant Riyaz Ahmad Hajam and Adil Bashir, were implicated, pursuant to which five Chinese grenades, two Chinese pistols, two pistol magazines, ten live rounds, two cheques worth Rs.1 lakh and a scooty were recovered. During further investigation, four more persons, including petitioner Faiz Ahmad Khan, were arrested and, from their possession, four packets of heroin, cash amounting to Rs.16 lakh and a Canter truck were also seized
The investigation revealed that the recovered contraband had been procured for use in narco-terror activities and that the proceeds realized from its sale were intended to be utilized for carrying out terrorist activities. It was in this background that the appellants, along with the co-accused, came to be arrested.
The court after hearing the case at length said the provisions of the NDPS Act and the UAPA law, though both special enactments, operate in distinct legislative fields and are required to be harmoniously construed. “The mere existence of Section 48 of the UAPA does not ipso facto render Section 36A of the NDPS Act inapplicable in a case involving allegations of narco-terror financing where offences under both enactments are attracted”, the court recorded.
The court in view of the discussion concluded that there is no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders dated 14.12.2021 and 27.05.2022 passed by the trial court warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 21 of the NIA Act. “The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed along with all connected applications. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated”, the court said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
