Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) against a judgment of the Designated Judge, TADA, Jamnagar dated July 1, 1994 confirming attachment of seven vessels under Section 7A of TADA. The dispute arose from Crime Register No.62/93 at Kalyanpur Police Station involving offences under the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, Bombay Police Act, and TADA. During investigation, a diary belonging to Hamir Sajan was found containing financial transactions relating to one Haji Ismail for purchasing ships. The District Superintendent of Police attached seven ships under Section 7A. The appellants, claiming to be owners, objected and sought revocation. The Designated Judge confirmed the attachment on a prima facie basis, finding that the main accused Haji Haji Ismail was involved in smuggling gold and silver and possessing illegal arms, and that the ships were purchased using his funds with the appellants as ostensible owners. The judge held that Section 7A does not require the property to belong to an accused; any property reasonably believed to be derived from terrorist activity or proceeds of terrorism can be attached. The appellants argued before the Supreme Court that Section 7A came into force on 22.5.1993 while purchases occurred before that date, none of the owners were arrested under TADA or Customs Act, and there was no knowledge or reason to believe the properties were involved in terrorist activities. The prosecution contended that a prima facie case existed and investigation was ongoing, with some accused absconding. The Supreme Court, noting that the matter was still at investigation stage, declined to give any final opinion to avoid prejudice. It found that the Investigating Officer prima facie had reason to believe there was basis for invoking Section 7A and that the Designated Judge's conclusions need not be interfered with at that stage. However, the Court held that one ship, "Nabi Mahar" (Registration No.B.D.I.430) purchased on 10.12.1965, could not be kept under attachment because it was purchased long before TADA was passed. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of with the modification that the attachment of "Nabi Mahar" be released, while the attachment of the remaining six ships was confirmed. The Court directed no further interference with the Designated Judge's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attachment of Property under TADA - Section 7A of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Scope of attachment not limited to property belonging to accused or offender under TADA; any property can be attached if reasonably believed to be derived from commission of terrorist activity or acquired by proceeds of terrorism - Designated Judge found prima facie case that ships were purchased with funds provided by absconding main accused Haji Haji Ismail and were held in names of appellants as ostensible owners - Held that at investigation stage, confirmation of attachment on prima facie basis does not warrant interference (Paras not numbered in original text). B) Criminal Law - Retrospective Application of TADA - Section 7A of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Property acquired long before coming into force of TADA cannot be attached under Section 7A - Ship bearing name "Nabi Mahar", Registration No.B.D.I.430 purchased on 10.12.1965, was released from attachment because it was purchased long before passing of TADA - Held that TADA provisions cannot be applied retrospectively to property acquired before the Act's commencement (Paras not numbered in original text). C) Criminal Procedure - Consideration at Investigation Stage - Section 19 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Appellate court should avoid giving final opinion on merits when investigation is ongoing to prevent prejudice to either party - Supreme Court declined to deal with matter in detail or give final decision and only examined whether prima facie basis existed for invoking Section 7A - Held that no interference warranted with prima facie conclusions reached by Designated Judge (Paras not numbered in original text). D) Criminal Law - Prima Facie Standard for Attachment - Section 7A of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Reason to believe that property is involved in terrorist activities requires prima facie satisfaction, not conclusive proof - Investigating Officer relied on diary of Hamir Sajan showing financial transactions for purchasing ships and relationship of appellants to absconding main accused Haji Haji Ismail; Designated Judge found sufficient prima facie basis - Held that materials on record were sufficient to establish prima facie reason to believe for invoking Section 7A (Paras not numbered in original text).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Designated Judge correctly confirmed attachment of seven ships under Section 7A of TADA; whether Section 7A applies to property purchased before its commencement; whether attachment requires property to belong to an accused under TADA; whether there was prima facie reason to believe properties were derived from terrorist activity
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of with modification: attachment of ship 'Nabi Mahar' (Registration No.B.D.I.430) purchased on 10.12.1965 released; attachment of remaining six ships confirmed; no interference with Designated Judge's order in any other respect.
Law Points
- Section 7A of TADA permits attachment of any property reasonably believed to be derived from commission of terrorist activity or acquired by proceeds of terrorism
- attachment not limited to property of accused
- at investigation stage
- prima facie satisfaction sufficient
- TADA provisions cannot be applied retrospectively to property acquired before the Act came into force
