The Delhi High Court has ruled that an appeal against a special judge’s decision upholding the attachment of property under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) can be heard by the High Court.
A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja rejected the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) preliminary objection that such an appeal was not maintainable, Bar and Bench reported.
The ruling came in the case of Aquil Ahmed v National Investigation Agency Through the Chief Investigating Officer.
Court distinguishes attachment from forfeiture
The NIA had argued that Section 25(6) of the UAPA provides for only one appeal, before the special court. It further contended that Section 28 separately provides for an appeal to the High Court against a forfeiture order passed under Section 26.
The High Court, however, noted that attachment and forfeiture are separate stages under the law. A property does not automatically become forfeited merely because it has been attached.
"Simple attachment of the property does not automatically lead to its forfeiture under Section 26 of the UAPA. In fact, a separate show cause notice is required to be given under Section 27 of the said Act, and upon hearing the concerned party, an order of forfeiture is to be passed under Section 26 of the Act. The two appeals would, therefore, be dealing with distinct stages of the proceedings which are final in their own stages," the Court observed.
HC says attachment order is final
The NIA had also argued that Section 21 of the NIA Act, which allows appeals against special court orders before the High Court, could not apply to an attachment order under the UAPA.
It further submitted that an order under Section 25(6) was interlocutory and therefore could not be challenged under Section 21.
The High Court disagreed, holding that such an order is final because it conclusively decides the issue of seizure or attachment.
"As far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that there is a likelihood of a conflicting opinion being rendered by the High Court if an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act is held to be maintainable against an order passed under Section 25(6) of the UAPA, as a separate appeal is already provided to this Court under Section 28 of the said Act, the same does not impress us," it added.
Case involved Pune property
The court therefore held that Ahmed’s appeal under Section 28 of the UAPA read with Section 21 of the NIA Act was maintainable.
Ahmed had approached the High Court against a special judge’s order dismissing his challenge to a June 2023 decision of the MHA’s designated authority. The attachment concerned the fourth and fifth floors of a property in Ashraf Nagar, Pune.