The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (Srinagar Bench) dismissed the appeal, observing that a registered owner who has parted with the possession of a vehicle and accepted sale consideration has no locus standi to reclaim its custody.
The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Trehgam under Sections 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act and 13, 20 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. On January 22, 2022, an underground worker, namely, Fareed Ahmed Chouhan, was apprehended in an anti-militancy operation, leading to the recovery of arms, ammunition, and foreign currency. During the investigation, it was discovered that a Tata Nexon vehicle was being used by him for the transportation of illegal weapons; therefore, it was seized.
The appellant sought the release of the vehicle as its registered owner, executing a power of attorney and transferring possession to the accused for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,210,000/-. However, the Special Court of Kupwara dismissed her application, ruling that she lacked the locus standi to reclaim custody after having already parted with the possession of the vehicle. On the other hand, the respondent, while opposing the appeal, submitted that the vehicle was purchased from the proceeds of militancy-related activities and was involved in transporting arms. It was further submitted that the appellant failed to produce the original power of attorney despite being directed twice by the court.
Hearing the appeal, the bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem noted that the appellant had taken contradictory and prevaricated stands. The court observed that since the appellant had accepted sale consideration and parted with possession, she could not reclaim the vehicle under the garb of court orders and remarked that the application appeared to be a ploy invented by the accused. The court also expressed concern that no confiscation proceedings have been initiated under Chapter V of the UAPA by the investigation agency in respect of the vehicle in question despite the allegations of being involved in terror activities.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant has grossly abused the process of the court through suppressio veri (suppression of truth) and suggestio falsi (suggestion of falsehood).
Appearance:
Appellant- Mr T. A. Lone, Advocate.
Respondent- Ms Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel.
