Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court upheld the seizure of a vehicle implicated in terrorist activities, emphasizing that procedural timelines outlined in Section 25 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, are directory rather than mandatory. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta, dismissed the appeal challenging the seizure, reinforcing the principle that procedural lapses should not impede actions taken in the interest of national security.

Background:

The case originated from an FIR registered under Sections 13, 16, 18, and 38 of the UAPA, along with provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the Arms Act. The accused was apprehended with illegal contraband and arms, leading to the seizure of a vehicle believed to be used in terrorist activities. The vehicle’s owners contested the seizure, citing procedural violations under Section 25 of the UAPA.

Appellants’ Arguments:

The appellants contended that the seizure was invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements stipulated in Section 25 of the UAPA. They argued that the Investigating Officer failed to inform the Designated Authority of the seizure within the mandated 48-hour period, instead doing so after a delay of 10 months. Additionally, they highlighted that the Designated Authority did not confirm or revoke the seizure within the prescribed 60-day timeframe. The appellants also emphasized that the vehicle was mortgaged, asserting that it should not be classified as proceeds of terrorism.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents maintained that the vehicle was utilized for illegal activities, including the transportation of arms, ammunition, and narcotics. They acknowledged the procedural delays but argued that such lapses are not fatal in cases concerning national security, emphasizing that the timelines under Section 25 are directory. The respondents further contended that retaining the vehicle was essential to preserve its evidentiary value for the trial and that releasing it could compromise the case.

Court’s Analysis and Judgment:

The High Court examined the provisions of Section 25 of the UAPA, which empowers the Investigating Officer to seize property believed to be proceeds of terrorism, with the approval of the Director General of Police. The court noted that while the section mandates informing the Designated Authority within 48 hours of the seizure and requires the authority to confirm or revoke the seizure within 60 days, these timelines are directory rather than mandatory. The court emphasized that procedural delays should not invalidate actions taken to combat terrorism, as long as the fundamental rights of individuals are not compromised.

Addressing the appellants’ contention regarding the mortgaged status of the vehicle, the court held that ownership is irrelevant if the vehicle has been used for carrying out terrorist or other criminal activities. The court also pointed out that the owners were allowed to file a representation before the Designated Authority, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s order refusing to release the seized vehicle. The court’s decision underscores the primacy of national security considerations over procedural technicalities, affirming that delays in procedural compliance under Section 25 of the UAPA do not invalidate seizures made in the interest of public safety.