9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Maintainability of appeals under Section 18 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Nature of the order impugned as interlocutory or final - Interpretation of Section 8 of the Act and Sections 82 to 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Right of appeal under Section 19 of the Act - Distinction between interlocutory and final orders - Impact of the impugned order on third party claimants - Filing of civil suits by claimants - Efficiency of Designated Courts in disposing of claims - Dismissal of appeals based on preliminary objection Detailed Analysis: The judgment in question dealt with the maintainability of appeals under Section 18 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, specifically focusing on whether the order impugned was a judgment, sentence, or final order passed by the Designated Court. The respondent argued that the order was not appealable as it was not a final order, while the appellants contended that it was final for the parties in the appeals. The controversy revolved around the nature of the order under Section 8 of the Act read with Section 84 of the Code, with the respondent claiming it was interlocutory and the appellants asserting it was final concerning them. The court examined the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, which pertains to the forfeiture of property of convicted persons and those accused under the Act. It also delved into Sections 82 to 84 of the Code, which govern the attachment of properties and the process for claiming rights in such properties. The court emphasized that the order in question was subject to the decision of a civil court, indicating its interlocutory nature, especially concerning third-party claimants. The judgment clarified the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, highlighting that interlocutory orders do not finally decide the rights of the parties but address interim matters. It explained that orders like property attachment, summoning witnesses, or adjourning cases are typically interlocutory and not subject to appeal under Section 19 of the Act. The court emphasized that the impugned order did not conclusively adjudicate the rights of the appellants, making it interlocutory and not appealable. The court underscored the importance of filing civil suits for claimants whose objections are disallowed, as it provides a proper legal remedy. It commended the claimants for filing civil suits post the impugned order, indicating a correct understanding of legal recourse. Additionally, the court urged Designated Courts to avoid lengthy judgments for interlocutory matters, emphasizing the need for brevity and efficiency in disposing of claims. Ultimately, the court agreed with the preliminary objection raised by the Additional Solicitor General, ruling that the appeals were not maintainable under Section 18 of the Act. The appeals were consequently dismissed, affirming the interlocutory nature of the impugned order and the need for claimants to seek recourse through civil suits.
|
