Court rules registered owner lacks standing due to transfer of vehicle possession and failure to produce original documents
In a significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has dismissed an appeal by Rubeena Begum, challenging the trial court's decision to refuse the release of her vehicle, which was allegedly involved in militancy-related activities. The bench, comprising Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem, upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that the appellant, having transferred possession of the vehicle to an accused individual, lacked the locus standi to claim its return.
The case stems from an anti-militancy operation conducted on January 22, 2022, leading to the arrest of Over Ground Worker Fareed Ahmed Chouhan and the subsequent recovery of arms, ammunition, and foreign currency from his residence. The vehicle in question, a TATA-NEXON, was seized after it was discovered to be used for transporting illegal weapons.
Rubeena Begum, the registered owner, argued that as the legal owner, she was entitled to reclaim the vehicle. However, the court highlighted that she had executed a Power of Attorney in favor of the accused, thereby transferring possession. Despite court orders, she failed to produce the original Power of Attorney, raising doubts about her claims and intentions.
The court further noted the need for timely confiscation proceedings under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for assets acquired through proceeds of terrorism. The judgment underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of legal processes in cases involving national security.
The High Court's decision reinforces the principle that individuals cannot reclaim property involved in unlawful activities, especially when they have transferred ownership and failed to demonstrate clean hands.
Bottom Line:
Appeal challenging trial court's order refusing release of vehicle seized under allegations of involvement in militancy-related activities dismissed. Registered owner lacked locus standi, having parted with possession and failed to prove clean hands or provide original documents.
Statutory provision(s): National Investigation Act, 2008 Section 21, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Chapter V, Indian Arms Act Section 7/25.
