Narayan Prasad Nag V. Union Of India Through- National Investigation Agency, Raipur (C.G.)

CRA/2241/2024

AI Insights

Narayan Prasad Nag appealed against the order of the learned Special Judge, N.I.A. / Scheduled Crimes Jagdalpur, which had rejected his application for the release of INR 6,25,150 seized by the NIA during a raid. The seizure was part of an investigation into an attack on Ratan Dubey, allegedly linked to Maoist activities. The appellant argued that the seizure was arbitrary and without evidence of his involvement in any crime. The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Special Judge's assessment that the appellant's financial documents did not substantiate the source of the seized money, and that witness statements suggested a connection between the appellant and Maoist activities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800310 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, Criminal Procedure Code, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Arms Act, Indian Penal Code
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: PRIYANK RATHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Criminal Appeal; National Investigation Agency; Seizure of cash; Suspicion; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; Naxals/Maoists
• Section: 27; 10; 20; 25; 34; 13(1); 38(2); 16; 302; 302; 451; 39(2); 21(1)

Judgement Text

"1 2024:CGHC:49979-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2241 of 2024 Narayan Prasad Nag S/o Late Sukhlal Nag, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village And P.S.- Dhaudai, District-Narayanpur, (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus Union Of India Through- National Investigation Agency, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.12.2024 1. Heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant on I.A. No.01/2024 is an application for condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2024 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and 2 delay is condoned. 3. None appeared on behalf of respondent / Union of India. 4. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 17.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6753 of 2016, whereby, the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge. 5. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 17.09.2024 passed in the NIA Case No. 13/2024 by the learned Special Judge N.I.A. / Scheduled Crimes Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) with following relief:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the appeal of appellant and release the cash/money of INR 6,25,150/- of appellant in Supurdnama to him, in the interest of justice.” 6. Brief facts of the case are that Lakhesh Kumar Nag submitted a written complaint which is Crime No. 04/2023 before P.S. Jharaghati, District Narayanpur that he, along with Ratan Dubey were travelling in the Scorpio on 04.11.2024 from Narayanpur to Dhaudai for election campaign and they were doing election campaigning for BJP at Kaushalnar market in the evening at about 04-05 pm, 2 unknown persons came there and attacked Ratan Dubey from behind by Axe and then Ratan Dubey tried to ran from there and the assaulter chased him and hit him on his head by Axe, thereafter, Ratan Dubey fell down and one of the assaulter 3 assaulting Ratan Dubey by Axe on his head and thereafter another assaulter who was wearing dark green dress came with gun and tried to shoot him and they were chanting slogan there. He escaped from the spot and informed relatives of Ratan Dubey and police about the incident and when Ratan Dubey was brought at hospital he was declared dead by the doctor. Thereafter, the Central Government takes cognizance and the case was transferred to Nation Investigation Agency and FIR No. RC- 08/2024/NIA/RPR was re-registered by the agency on 23.02.2024. In the said FIR, one Dhansingh Korram was arrested for the offence under Section 302, 34 of IPC, section 25 & 27 of Arms Act and section 10, 13(1), 16, 20, 38(2), 39(2) of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and sensitive articles like Maoist pamphlets, dress, clothes with blood stains and other articles were recovered and thereafter 2 other accused persons were also arrested. Further, investigation was done in the matter, and on 26.06.2024 at about 5:35 in the morning, the NIA team conducted raid proceedings at the house of the appellant on suspicion of aiding the Naxals/Maoist and seized cash of Rs. 6,25,150/- and other documents by the NIA team. Thereafter, on 06.07.2024, the appellant presented an application under Section 451 of CrPC before the learned court below for release of his seized money in Supurdanam, however, eventually on 17.09.2024, the application of the appellant has been rejected. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 17.09.2024, the appellant prefers 4 the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any offence and merely on the suspicion that the appellant is aiding the Naxals/Maoists, his hard-earned money has been seized by the NIA team without any iota of evidence in connection of the same. Even in the order passed by the learned Special Court rejecting supurdnama application, applicant has been only named as a suspect and therefore he was not an accused in the crime in question. Further, the seizure of money and other articles is purely based on surmises and conjecture and there is no material qua the involvement of the applicant in any crime. The seizure of hard earned money of the applicant without any just and lawful ground is arbitrary, illegal and malafide and the same also violates Article 300 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is an innocent and law-abiding citizen of India and merely on the suspicion of him being an aide to Maoists/Naxals his money has been inappropriately seized without any evidence and base which is unjust. Also, no incriminating article nor any document, neither any weapons etc has been seized from the present appellant which would show his involvement in the matter as alleged by the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence of the appellant committing any crime or being involved in Maoist/Naxal activities in any manner. The appellant works as a Civil Contractor bearing licence No. UIN CGER04742 (Class-D) and having 16 acres of agricultural land in his name which shows that he is a well 5 abled person to accumulate such rupees of amount, and for managing his work he needs cash to regulate his business and pay his employees and therefore it is not a big thing of having such amount of cash in his possession. Merely having such amount of cash only would not show his involvement in either way as alleged by the prosecution. Further, the learned trial court has ignored the fact that the money which was seized from the appellant is his own hard-earned money, and to substantiate the question of prosecution regarding the same, the appellant has produced/presented his income certificate/Income Tax Returns which makes the case crystal clear that the appellant has earned those money through his business and possesses the said amount for his own needs and business. No FIR has been registered against the appellant nor his name has been mentioned anywhere in the FIR of the prosecution. Moreover, even the appellant has not been made an accused in the present matter. Even he is not involved in the present case yet arbitrarily huge cash amount has been seized from him which is unjust and illegal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Special Judge, N.I.A. / Scheduled Crimes Jagdalpur while rejecting the application preferred by the appellant under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C has observed that, although the appellant has 6 submitted the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2023- 24 and a copy of the bank statement of District Cooperative Central Bank, Limited, Jagdalpur and a copy of the loan statement and Income Tax Return for the assessment year of different years, but the prosecution has stated that the details mentioned in the Income Tax document of the appellant do not match with the seized amount, and it has been said that there is no mention in the Income Tax documents regarding the transaction of the said amount. Perusal of the case diary of the above mentioned FIR, RC 08/24 presented by the NIA also goes to show that it has been said in the statement of the witness attached to the case diary that the appellant is indirectly related to this incident and that he has old relations with the Maoists and that he used to supply goods and money to them etc. The facts have been revealed in the witness statement. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Special Judge, N.I.A. / Scheduled Crimes Jagdalpur with cogent and justifiable reasons. Hence, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 7 11. Accordingly, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet "