Riyaz Ahmad Hajam & Others vs Union Territory Through Police Station ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 134 j&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Riyaz Ahmad Hajam & Others vs Union Territory Through Police Station ... on 23 February, 2024

Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

                                                        Sr. No.07
                                                        Regular List

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                    AT SRINAGAR
                             CrlA(D) No.40/2022

Riyaz Ahmad Hajam & Others.                      ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through:     Mr. Aazim Pandith, Advocate.
                                     Vs.
Union Territory through Police Station Uri.                ...Respondent(s)
Through:     Mr. A. R. Malik, Sr. AAG with
             Mr. Mubeen Wani, DyAG.

CORAM:

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE
            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE

                                 ORDER

23.02.2024

1. Heard.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants, whereby the appellants have challenged the order dated 27.05.2022 (order dismissing application for default bail) and order dated 14.12.2021 which is an order extending remand of the appellants passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla in FIR No. 63/2021 of Police Station Uri District Baramulla, under Sections 7/25 of Arms Act 8/21 and 29 of NDPS Act, 18 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is a conflict between two special laws which are the 'Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967' and the 'Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985'. He has referred to Section 36 A (4) proviso whereby the learned Special Court can grant remand beyond a period of 180 days upon the report of the public prosecutor indicating the report of the investigation and specific reasons for detention. On the other hand he has referred to Section 48 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967, which provides that where any other statute which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the provisions of the UAPA would prevail over such other inconsistent provision in any other Act.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of UT of J&K on the other hand while agreeing with the learned counsel for the appellants, that the present case involves conflict between two special statutes has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case "Qamar Ganai Usmani vs. State of Gujarat". The reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in "Arshid Ahmad Allaie vs. UT of J&K & Another". Reliance has also been placed upon judgments in case "Chitraram Krishan vs. CBI" and "CBI vs. Chitraram" and "Avinash Jain Vs. CBI" and "CBI vs. Kapil Vadhvan".

5. As we are of the opinion that the issue involved in this case requires deliberation, we reserve this case for Judgment.

                 (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)         (ATUL SREEDHARAN)
                         JUDGE                          JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
23.02.2024
SHAISTA