1. Heard Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P.-NIA.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-10-2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 337/2024 arising out of Special
NIA Case No. 01/2022 by the learned AJC-XVI-cum-Special
Judge, NIA, Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the order dated
16-08-2024, passed by the Designated Authority confirming the
seizure of Rs. 1,13,70,500/- has been upheld.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Central
Government had received information that some prominent
cadres of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), a proscribed
terrorist organisation, namely, Pradyuman Sharma alias Saket
alias Kundan alias Sudhanshu alias Kunal alias Nakul alias
Laden, Yogendra Ravidas alias Lighter, Nagendra Giri, Abhinav
alias Gaurav alias Bittu, Dhananjay Paswan and others are
4. It has been alleged that in furtherance of such sinister
motive, they have conspired to raise funds for procurement of
arms and ammunitions and imparting training of cadres in IEDs
fabrication and to liaise with incarcerated Naxals, OGWs in
various jails for commission of terrorist activities.
In exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (5) of
Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, CTCR Division
vide Order F. No. 11011/79/2021/ NIA dated 27-12-2021
directed the National Investigation Agency to take up
investigation of the aforesaid case. In compliance to the same,
NIA, Ranchi had registered a case being RC No.
05/2021/NIA/RNC dated 30-12-2021 under Section 16, 17, 18,
20, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967.
5. The NIA had submitted a charge sheet against Tarun
Kumar (petitioner) (A-1) and Pradyuman Sharma (A-2), while
investigation continued against the other accused persons. In
course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had attached an
amount of Rs. 1,13,70,500/- seized from Chettinad Medical
Hospital where Puja Kumari, niece of accused Pradyuman
Sharma and sister of the present appellant was pursuing her
MBBS course for the academic year 2017-2022 extending up to
30-03-2023 portraying it to be the proceeds of terrorism. The
amount of Rs. 1,13,70,500/- was seized on 04-05-2023 and on
06-05-2023, a petition under Section 102 Cr.P.C. was filed before
the Court for depositing the money by way of demand draft in the
account of S.P.-NIA, Ranchi which was allowed by the Court.
Later, the Investigating Officer forwarded the seizure for approval
for attachment of Rs. 1,13,70,500/- to the D.G.-NIA and the
same was approved on 06-06-2024. The said amount was
subsequently attached as proceeds of terrorism on 17-06-2024.
Being called upon to submit a reply to the Designated Authority,
the appellant had done so on 08-07-2024 and vide order dated
16-08-2024, the Designated Authority had confirmed the order
of attachment. This led to an appeal being preferred by the
appellant being Criminal Appeal No. 337/2024 under Section
25(6) of the UA(P) Act which was dismissed on 21-10-2024 and
which is the order impugned to the present appeal.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. Shailesh Poddar, learned
counsel for the appellant that the medical college fees cannot be
termed to be proceeds of terrorism. It is the case of the NIA that
levy was raised not to conduct a terrorist activity, but to raise
college fees of the sister of the appellant who was pursuing her
medical studies. It has been submitted that protected witness "E"
and protected witness "H" are alleged to have made certain
payments for the medical fees and apart from the said two
witnesses, no other material has been collected to indicate that
the entire fees of the medical college was paid out of the levy
amount. Mr. Poddar has extensively referred to Section 25 of the
UA(P) Act and has submitted that ""reason to believe"" is the
initial feature of the said provision which the Investigating Officer
has to form and then only the property can be seized after the
prior approval in writing of the Director General of Police. The
Investigating Officer has reversed the mandatory requirement as
the property was seized and the "reason to believe" has emerged
thereafter. The approval of the Director General was sought for
after the seizure which again is contrary to Section 25(1) of the
UA(P) Act. According to Mr. Poddar, there has been non-
compliance of Section 25(2) of UA(P) Act as the Designated
Authority was not informed of the seizure of cash within 48 hours
of the seizure. In such context, reference has been made to the
case of Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors. reported in
2024 INSC 718. It has been submitted that due to the existing
imbroglio relating to non-payment of the fees, the medical degree
of the sister of the appellant has been withheld.
7. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Special P.P.-NIA has
submitted that the present appeal at the behest of the appellant
is not maintainable as it is the cousin sister of the appellant, who
is the aggrieved party. It has been submitted that Puja Kumari,
the cousin sister of the appellant had filed a writ application for
refund of the amount of Rs. 1,13,70,500/- before the Madras
High Court which was dismissed on 09-12-2024. The appellant
has been unable to show that he is the owner of the cash seized.
The entire money was deposited by private persons and not a
single penny has been deposited by the appellant which, in fact,
relinquishes his claim for release of the seized cash. Mr. Das has
submitted that the provisions of Section 25(1) of the UA(P) Act
does not provide for a timeline for forming an opinion. The
evidences of the protected witnesses have been referred to by the
learned Spl. P.P.-NIA and the same, according to him, categorizes
the manner in which the levy amount was channelized by way of
medical college fees. The entire facets of the case have been
appropriately considered in the impugned order dated 21-10-
2024 and, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Mr. Poddar, in reply, has submitted that the issue of
maintainability has never been raised earlier before the learned
court below.
9. Before considering the factual and legal matrix of the case,
it would be pertinent to have a glance at Section 25 of the UA(P)
Act which reads as under:
"25. Powers of investigating officer and
Designated Authority and appeal
against order of Designated
Authority.--
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
(1) If an officer investigating an offence
committed under Chapter IV or Chapter
VI, has reason to believe that any
property in relation to which an
investigation is being conducted,
represents proceeds of terrorism, he
shall, with the prior approval in writing
of the Director General of the Police of
the State [in which such property is
situated, or where the investigation is
conducted by an officer of the National
Investigation Agency, with the prior
approval of the Director General of
National Investigation Agency, make
an order] seizing such property and
where it is not practicable to seize such
property, make an order of attachment
directing that such property shall not
be transferred or otherwise dealt with
except with the prior permission of the
officer making such order, or of the
Designated Authority before whom the
property seized or attached is
produced and a copy of such order
shall be served on the person
concerned.
(2) The investigating officer shall duly
inform the Designated Authority within
forty-eight hours of the seizure or
attachment of such property.
(3) The Designated Authority before
whom the seized or attached property
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
is produced shall either confirm or
revoke the order of seizure or
attachment so issued within a period of
sixty days from the date of such
production: Provided that an
opportunity of making a representation
by the person whose property is being
seized or attached shall be given.
(4) In the case of immovable property
attached by the investigating officer, it
shall be deemed to have been produced
before the Designated Authority, when
the investigating officer notifies his
report and places it at the disposal of
the Designated Authority.
(5) The investigating officer may seize
and detain any cash to which this
Chapter applies if he has reasonable
grounds for suspecting that--
(a) it is intended to be used for the
purposes of terrorism; or
(b) it forms the whole or part of the
resources of a terrorist
organisation:
Provided that the cash
seized under this sub-section by
the investigating officer shall be
released within a period of forty-
eight hours beginning with the
time when it is seized unless the
matter involving the cash is
before the Designated Authority
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
and such Authority passes an
order allowing its retention
beyond forty-eight hours.
Explanation.--For the purposes
of this sub-section, "cash"
means--
(a) coins or notes in any currency;
(b) postal orders;
(c) traveller's cheques;
[(ca) credit or debit cards or cards
that serve a similar purpose;]
(d) banker's drafts; and
(e) such other monetary
instruments as the Central
Government or, as the case may
be, the State Government may
specify by an order made in
writing.
(6) Any person aggrieved by an order
made by the Designated Authority may
prefer an appeal to the court within a
period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order, and the court may
either confirm the order of attachment
of property or seizure so made or
revoke such order and release the
property."
10. Section 25(1) of the UA(P) Act puts an onus upon the
Investigating Officer to form an opinion as to whether the
property which is the subject matter of investigation represents
proceeds of crime and after prior approval of the Director General
seize such property. Section 25(2) envisages about information
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
to be furnished to the Designated Authority by the Investigating
Officer which shall be within 48 hours of the seizure or
attachment of property. As per Section 25(3) of the UA(P) Act, the
Designated Authority shall either confirm or revoke the order of
seizure or attachment within 60 days from the date of
production.
11. In the context of Section 25 of the UA(P) Act, when one
considers the factual aspects, a different scenario seems to
emerge. Once the amount of Rs. 1,13,70,500/- was recovered
from Chettinad Medical College and Research Institute, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu, an application was preferred under Section 102
Cr.P.C. before the Special Court, NIA, Ranchi and the petition
was allowed and the amount was deposited in the account of
S.P.-NIA, Ranchi. The approval of the Director General, NIA was
accorded on 06-06-2024 for attachment of Rs. 1,13,70,500/- as
proceeds of terrorism and as a consequence thereof, the same
was attached as proceeds of terrorism vide Letter No. RC-
05/2021/NIA/DLI/Attachment/844 dated 18-06-2024. The
"reason to believe" as depicted in Section 25(1) of the UA(P) Act
synergizes with the approval of attachment by the Director
General and though it has been submitted by Mr. Poddar,
learned counsel for the appellant that no definitive opinion has
been framed by the Investigating Officer that the amount is a
"proceeds of terrorism", but we find that the charge sheet which
had been submitted prior to the seizure itself depicts sufficient
reasons for forming an opinion that the amount seized was a
proceeds of terrorism. The procedure of seizure as depicted in
Section 25(1) of the UA(P) Act does not have any specific timeline
for completing the issue of seizure and approval of the competent
authority. So far as the applicability or otherwise of Section 25(2)
of the UA(P) Act is concerned, the approval for attachment was
given on 06-06-2024 by the Director General of NIA and the
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
amount was attached vide letter dated 18-06-2024 addressed to
the Designated Authority. The learned counsel for the appellant
has stressed on the dates 06-06-2024 and 18-06-2024, while
submitting that the information furnished to the Designated
Authority was beyond the statutory period of 48 hours as
envisaged in Section 25(2) of the UA(P) Act. Such submission is
negated primarily on account of the fact that Section 25(2) of the
UA(P) Act does not speak of providing information to the
Designated Authority within 48 hours of approval of the Director
General. The said provision provides a timeline of 48 hours from
the time of seizure or attachment and the learned counsel for the
appellant has failed to show that the information was supplied
beyond the period prescribed.
12. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the appellant has referred
to the case of Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors.
(Supra), wherein it has been held as follows:
"33. In matters of strict construction,
when a timeline is provided, along with
the use of the word 'shall' and
particularly when the same is in the
context of a law such as the UAPA, it
cannot be considered a mere
technicality or formality. It
demonstrates clear intention on the
part of the Legislature. A compulsion
has been imposed, and for compliance
with that compulsion, a timeline has
been provided. While the legislation is
aimed at curbing unlawful activities
and practices detrimental to national
security and accordingly, provides the
authorities of the Government ample
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
power to undertake and complete all
procedures and processes permissible
under law to that end, at the same time
the interest of accused persons must
also be safeguarded and protected. It
is expected of the Executive, in
furtherance of the ideal of protection of
national security, that it would work
with speed and dispatch. The concern
expressed by the Bombay High Court
is that a strict interpretation of the
timeline may defeat the objective of the
legislation. While on first blush, such a
statement is attractive, we cannot lose
sight of the fact that the time granted is
only for consideration of the material
collected by way of an independent
review and then making a
recommendation whereafter the
sanctioning authority may then
consider the materials as well as
recommendation to finally, grant or
deny the sanction. It is not for the
purpose of the investigation itself,
which understandably can be a time-
consuming process, given the multiple
variables involved. There have to be
certain limitations within which
administrative authorities of the
Government can exercise their powers.
Without such limitations, power will
enter the realm of the unbridled, which
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
needless to state is, antithetical to a
democratic society. Timelines in such
cases, serve as essential aspects of
checks and balances and of course, are
unquestionably important. If the view
of the Bombay and Jharkhand High
Courts is allowed to stand it would be
tantamount to the Judicial Wing
supplanting its view in place of the
legislature which is impermissible in
view of the doctrine of separation of
powers. We find support for our view in
the Constitution Bench decision in A.R.
Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak,
wherein D.A. Desai, J., held as under:
"18. It is a well-established
cannon of construction that the
court should read the section as it
is and cannot rewrite it to suit its
convenience; nor does any
cannon of construction permit the
court to read the section in such
manner as to render it to some
extent otiose."
[See also : Union of India v. Deoki
Nandan Aggarwal; Institute of
Chartered Accountants of
India v. Price Waterhouse;
and Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing
Society v. Swaraj Developers]
The legislative intent is clear. Rules
made by virtue of statutory powers
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
prescribe both a mandate and a time
limit. The same has to be followed.
Here itself we may clarify that the
conclusion arrived at by us in respect
of the strict adherence to the timeline
mentioned in Rules 3 & 4 of the 2008,
Rules shall not affect any decision of
the authorities where the same may or
may not have been followed as on date
of this judgment. For ample clarity, it is
stated that the observations made in
this judgment shall apply
prospectively.
13. As we have noticed about there has been no violation of
Section 25 of the UA(P) Act even on strict construction of the said
provision and having negated the technical and procedural
glitches pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant we
have turned our attention to the other aspects of the case,
especially the result of the investigation.
14. The role and activities of the appellant has been depicted at
Para 17.14.01 of the charge sheet which reads as follows:
17.14.01: Role, Activities and Offences
established against the arrested
accusted Tarun Kumar @ Tarun (A-1), in
the instant crime: Arrested accused A-1 is
associated with CPI (Maoist), a proscribed
terrorist organization, declared by the
Government of India. For the cadres of CPI
(Maoist), he used to raise funds and also
motivate ex-cadres of CPI (Maoist) for the
revival of the above organization. He was a
party to the conspiracy in raising funds for
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
the CPI (Maoist) in the instant case. As a part
of the larger conspiracy, he worked as a
conduit between the operatives of CPI
(Maoist) and other stakeholders of Magadh
Zone in the state of Jharkhand and Bihar. A-
1 has written the demand letters for levy and
also forwarded the same to local contractors,
knowing well that such funds will be used
against the country threatening its Unity,
Integrity, Security and Sovereignty.
Therefore, as per averments made in pre-
paras, it is established that A-1 became
member of CPI (Maoist) and actively
participated in the conspiracy and raising
funds, which was hatched among co-
accused persons in raising funds for the
CPI(Maoist). Thereby, A-1 has committed
offences u/s. 120B (Substantively)
Section 120B r/w Section 386 & 411 of
IPC & Sections 13, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 &
40 of UA (P) Act, 1967.
15. The deposit of the fees of the Medical College seems to have
been on account of extortion and deposit of levy which gathers
strength from the statements of the protected witnesses
indicating that the deposit of the fees of the medical college seems
to be on account of extortion and deposit of levy which gathers
strength from the statement of the protected witnesses indicating
the manner of extortion and the same reads as under:
quote Para 17.4.8, 17.4.9, 17.4.10, 17.4.11 and 17.4.14.
17.4.8: Statement of Protected Witness
"A" (Hereinafter referred to as "PW-"A"): -
PW- "A" stated in his statement that, during
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
the year 2019 his company had taken a
construction project. During the initial period,
he was regularly threatened by the arrested
accused persons i.e., A - 1 A - 2 and A - 3
who were demanding levy on behalf of CPI
(Maoist), a proscribed terrorist organization.
Accordingly, due to regular threats (over
VOIP calls), he was forced to pay the
extortion money. PW-"A" stated in his
statement that, he was directed by the
accused A - 2 to pay the extortion amount in
the bank account provided to him. The
details of the bank account number
xxxxxxxx59680 of Ms. Nitu Devi in IDBI bank
account of Bihta, Patna, Bihar was shared
by A - 1 on his WhatsApp number. PW-"A"
stated that when he had asked about the
owner of the bank account, it was stated by
the A - 1 and A - 3 that, the above bank
account belongs to his close associate i.e.,
absconding accused Chandan Kumar (A-4).
Accordingly, on 08.10.2020 a sum of three
lakh rupees were transferred in the above
bank account. The above facts have been
corroborated by the statements of other
important witnesses and from the bank
account statements of Ms. Nitu Devi and
construction company. After this transaction,
PW-"A" was not picking up the calls of A - 1
A-2 and A-3. During investigation, it has also
surfaced that during the first week of
February 2022, a letter was received on the
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
WhatsApp number of PW-"A", which was
later shared with PW-"B". The letter was
written by "Saket". It is pertinent to mention
here that, "Saket" is the alias name of the
FIR named accused (A-2). Further, it is also
important to mention and clarify that the
letter was actually written by accused A - 1
in the name of A - 2 Thereafter, A-2 had sent
the letter from his own mobile handset to
PW-"A", which was also seized on
12.02.2022.
17.4.9: Examination of Protected
Witness "B" (Hereinafter referred as PW-
"B"):- PW-B corroborated the statement of
PW-"A". He also added few more facts and
produced the copy of the demand letter,
which was sent by accused A - 1 on the
WhatsApp number of PW- "A". The image of
the letter was seized on production order on
04.04.2022. PW-B also produced few
incriminating voice clips of arrested FIR
named accused A - 2 which were received by
him in connection with demand of extortion
money. During the investigation, the
incriminating voice clips between A - 2 and
PW-"B" was seized on production order.
Further, during the police remand of arrested
accused A - 2 the specimen voice clip of the
accused A-2 was obtained in the presence of
two independent witnesses. Further, the
voice in question (seized incriminating voice
clips) and the specimen voice of the arrested
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
accused A-2 was sent to CFSL, New Delhi for
matching and obtaining expert opinion and
the same was received.
17.4.10: Statement of Protected Witness
"C" (Hereinafter referred as PW- "C"): -
During Investigation the name of PW- "C" has
surfaced as a victim who had paid money to
the accused persons A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4,
as levy to the CPI(Maoist), a proscribed
terrorist organization. During investigation
PW- "C" was examined and during his
examination he stated that he was regularly
receiving threatening calls from (A-1), (A-2)
and (A-3), maximum on his WhatsApp
number for paying levy to the CPI(Maoist). In
support of his claim, he had produced few
incriminating voice clips of accused A-3.
During investigation the specimen voice of A-
3 was voluntarily obtained in the presence
of two independent witnesses. Further, the
voice in question and the specimen voice
were forwarded to CFSL, New Delhi for
matching and obtaining expert opinion.
Investigation also revealed that, PW- "C"
was directed by the accused persons A-1, A-
2 and A-3 to pay the levy and for the said
purpose transferred the funds in the bank
account number xxxxxxxx59680, in IDBI
bank account of Bihta, Patna, Bihar, which
belonged to Ms. Nitu Devi. On the direction of
accused A-2, the details of bank account
were shared by accused persons A-1 and A-
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
3 on the WhatsApp number of PW-"C".
Investigation has also revealed that the
funds i.e., approx. Six Lakhs Forty thousand
rupees were transferred / deposited in the
bank account of Ms. Nitu Devi. For
transferring the funds, PW- "C" had used the
assistance of his supervisor i.e., PW- "D" and
approximately, two lakhs sixty-five
thousand was transferred through the UPI
number of PW- "D". To minimize the risk of
suspicion, the funds were transferred in
small amounts from the IDBI Bank,
Koderma, Jharkhand. The above facts also
get corroborated with the deposit slips, bank
account statements of Ms. Nitu Devi and
from the statements of independent
witnesses. The date wise details of funds
deposit/transfer in the bank accounts of
Nitu Devi, are as under: -
Chart-01, the details of funds (cash),
which were transferred from the IDBI
Bank. Branch Koderma. Jharkhand in
the bank account of Ms. Nitu Devi.
Sl. No. Date Amount
1 15.02.2021 Rs. 25,000/-
2 16.02.2021 Rs. 25,000/-
3 17.02.2021 Rs. 25,000/-
4 20.03.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
5 22.03.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
6 24.03.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
7 25.03.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
8 26.03.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
9 08.04.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
10 13.04.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
11 16.04.2021 Rs. 10,000/-
12 15.06.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
13 16.06.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
14 17.06.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
15 18.06.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
16 19.06.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
17 21.06.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
18 22.06.2021 Rs. 20,000/-
19 23.06.2021 Rs. 10,000/-
Grand Total Rs. 3,75,000/-
17.4.11: Statement of Protected Witness
"D" (Hereinafter referred as PW- "D"): -
During investigation the PW- "D" was
examined in context of transferring of funds
on the direction of PW-"C". PW- "D"
corroborated the facts deposed by PW- "C".
Further, it is also established from the
investigation that approx. two lakhs sixty-
five thousand rupees were transferred in the
bank account of Ms. Nitu Devi by the PW- "D"
through his UPI number. The above facts
have also been corroborated with the details
of UPI payments done by the PW- "D" and the
bank account statement of Ms. Nitu Devi.
The details are as under: -
Chart-02, Details of payments, which
were made by PW-D in the IDBI Bank
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
Account of Ms. Nitu Devi.
Sl. No. Date Amount
1 07.12.2020 Rs. 50,000/-
2 09.12.2020 Rs. 40,000/-
3 09.12.2020 Rs. 40,000/-
4 10.12.2020 Rs. 60,000/-
5 12.02.2021 Rs. 25,000/-
6 14.02.2021 Rs. 25,000/-
7 16.02.2021 Rs. 25,000/-
Grand Total Rs. 2,65,000/-
17.4.14: Statement of Protected Witness
"H" (Hereinafter referred as PW-"H"):- PW-
"H" is a businessman and used to take road
contracts in the districts of Aurangabad,
Jehanabad & Gaya and its nearby districts
of Bihar state. Investigation has revealed
that, huge funds were demanded by the
arrested accused A-2 from PW-"H" as levy on
behalf of CPI (Maoist), a proscribed terrorist
organization. Investigation also established
that a sum of twenty-four lakhs seventy
thousand and five hundred rupees, as
extortion were transferred in the bank
account of Chettinad Medical College and
Research Institute, Chennai, Tamilnadu. At
later stage, it has been revealed that the
said amount was paid as fee, for the niece
of arrested accused A-2 and sister of
arrested accused A-1. The details of bank
account were shared to PW-"H" by arrested
accused persons A-1 and A-3. Accordingly,
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
the above funds were transferred under fear
and compulsion. The above fact also gets
corroborated from the bank account
statements and the statements of other
important witnesses. The details of
payments, which were made in the bank
account of above Medical College and
Research Institute, are as under: -
Chart No-03, Details of payment of
extortion amount, which were paid by
Protected Witness "H" on the direction of
accused A-2.
Sl. No. Date Amount
1 13.07.2020 Rs. 5,00,000/-
2 15.07.2020 Rs. 5,00,000/-
3 16.07.2020 Rs. 3,00,000/-
4 11.01.2021 Rs. 3,70,500/-
5 07.08.2021 Rs. 5,00,000/-
6 03.09.2021 Rs. 3,00,000/-
Grand Total Rs. 24,70,500/-
16. The statement of protected witness "H" reveals that an
amount of Rs. 24,70,500/- was transferred by him to the bank
account of Chettinad Medical College and Research Centre,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu. This was done on account of the levy
demanded from him. The statement of protected witness "C"
reveals about the details of transfer of money and the threatening
calls which were received by him from the appellant and others
demanding levy. It is therefore incorrect to say that the money
was collected from relations and well-wishers as has been
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant; rather it has
been convincingly proved that the money which was attached
( 2025:JHHC:25346-DB )
was proceeds of crime collected by way of levy by making threats
and calls for extortion with the appellant playing one of the
leading roles in such dubious transactions. The appellant also
seems to have zero contribution individually in the collection of
fees and had adopted sinister means to get the amounts
deposited which has rightly been categorized as "proceeds of
terrorism".
17. The order passed by the Designated Authority dated 16-08-
2024 and the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 337/2024
dated 21-10-2024 have considered the features of the case in its
proper perspective and as such, we do not find any reason to
cause interference with the same and consequently, we dismiss
this appeal.
18. We make it clear that since we have dismissed this appeal
on merits, we have not entered into the realm of maintainability
of the appeal as has been much harped upon by Mr. Das, learned
Spl. P.P.-NIA.
19. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 26th Day of August, 2025
Preet/N.A.F.R.
