Srinagar, Aug 8: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a government appeal against the acquittal order passed by a special NIA court in favour of an accused facing trial in a case related to Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in south Kashmir.
The special NIA court, Anantnag acquitted Ghulam Mohammad Lone of a village in Srigufwara on February 20 last year in a case registered against him under UAPA on September 8, 2012 following investigation into the pasting of posters by proscribed terror outfit, Hizbul Mujahideen, threatening the elected panches and sarpanches to resign or face dire consequences.
Hearing the appeal by the Union Territory of J&K against the acquittal, the division bench of the high court said it is evident that for an act to be termed as “unlawful activity”, it must be one which is intended to or supports any claim to bring about the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of territory of India from the Union or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession.
“The act or action may also fall within the term ‘unlawful activity’ as if it disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India or which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India,” Justice Sanjay Parihar and Justice Sanjeev Kumar said in their eight-page order passed on July 31.
The order said the writings on the offending posters were only aimed at and intended to intimidate elected panches by threatening that in case they do not resign from their positions they would be killed.
“Such words in writing cannot be said to be intended to bring about cession or session of part of the territory of India from the Union nor does it disclaim, question, disrupt or is intended to disrupt any sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. These words can also be not understood to cause or intended to cause disaffection against India,” the court said.
Going by the plain definition of the term “unlawful activities”, it said the act attributed to the accused does not fall within the purview of the term of “unlawful activity” under Section 2(o) of the Act.
The order said the ingredients of Section 13 of the UA(P) Act were thus not made out.
“The trial Court should have discharged the respondent of the charge and instead framed an appropriate charge under the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). We could have remanded the matter back to the trial Court for framing such a charge, but having regard to the fact that respondent has already faced the ordeal of trial for more than eight years and, therefore it would not be appropriate to do so.
“For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed,” the court said.
The court also said that it is abundantly clear that the offence with which the respondent was charged by the trial court has not been proved by any cogent evidence.
“Other than the statement of (PW-6) Prosecution Witness-6 that the specimen writing taken by the police in the presence of Executive Magistrate is similar to the writing on the offending posters, there is no material connecting the respondent with the preparation and affixing of the offending posters on the electric poles in the town,” the HC said.