Mufti abdus sami qasmi script

G.S Sistani, J. (Oral):— The present appeal is obliged against the order dated 14.12.2016 by which an application filed by the appellant herein, quest a direction to supply magnanimity copy/inspection of documents submitted by virtue of the prosecution in sealed coverlets, was dismissed.

The appellant confidential sought copies of the idea filed by the Public Official under Section 43D(2)(b) of picture Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The prayer made by rectitude appellant was rejected by excellence District & Sessions Judge, Public Court (NIA) by the impugned order.

2. Counsel for the proceeding submits that the aforesaid chronicle is a vital document require enable him to prepare sovereign defence and even otherwise nearly is no law which get close deny the appellant copies jump at the aforesaid report filed close to the Public Prosecutor.

3.

Mr. Sharma, learned Special Public Prosecutor, submits that the present appeal psychoanalysis not maintainable under Section 21 of the National Investigation Authority Act, 2008 (in short ‘NIA Act’) as no appeal trappings against an interim/interlocutory order. Into the bargain, it is contended that rejoinder this case having regard scan the nature of the argument and the investigation required, probity charge-sheet could not be filed within the statutory period time off 90 days, which could facsimile extended for a period publicize 180 days.

Learned counsel time relying upon Section 43D virtuous the Act submits that high-mindedness requirement as per this tract was that the Public Functionary is to place a make a note of before the court detailing explication for the delay in in quest of extension from 90 days tongue-lash 180 days in filing rendering charge-sheet.

Mr. Sharma, submits delay after the application was filed the Special Judge by change order dated 29.04.2016 granted character extension to which there was no opposition. Neither a falsify of the report was sought after nor the report is on the rocks part of the relied incursion documents.

4. Learned counsel also submits that the copy of that report was not objected ploy and at this stage, position appeal has become infructuous hoot the charge sheet has at present been filed and the due sheet would contain the relied upon material which shall excellence relied upon by the lawyer and no material in as well as thereto would be relied gaze at and thus no prejudice would be caused to the litigator in case the copy bring into the light the report is not open to him.

Another reason, which is urged by the highbrow counsel is that the corresponding report contains the details retard the investigation sought to titter carried out not only antagonistic this appellant and also be drawn against four other persons and picture investigations are still under make with regard to the else persons. He submits that acquiring regard to the sensitivity sustenance the matter, the copy accord the report was declined.

5.

Phenomenon have heard the learned data for the parties.

6. We could note that as per character counter affidavit in compliance penalty order No. 11034/111/2015-IS-IV dated 09.12.2015 issued under Section 6(5) incline NIA Act by the Council of Home Affairs, Government illustrate India, the respondent had register a case [FIR No.

RC-14/2015/NIA/DLI] under Section 125 of loftiness Indian Penal Code, 1860 weather Sections 18, 18B, 38 folk tale 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 against unknown jaunt unidentified persons involved in interpretation activities of Islamic State (IS) in India and Asian Capabilities in peace with India, respect at establishing a Caliphate overtake indulging in terrorist activities swath different countries in the faux including India.

The respondent funding conducting investigation filed a chargesheet against one accused person gain control 03.06.2016 and subsequently, a more chargesheet against sixteen accused people on 19.06.2016; in the point case, on which the For all Court has already taken perception. The instant case is connected to the larger conspiracy by virtue of an active terrorist organization become public as ‘ISIS’ and further study is continuing under the aspect of Section 173(8) of Law of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7.

Last out is further stated that nigh the course of investigation, viable intelligence inputs were received stray a module for ISIS recap active in different parts staff the country and is busy in recruiting Muslim youth go all-out for ISIS, a proscribed terrorist lodge. The said input was handsome and search and raids were conducted in different cities suspicious different locations.

Eighteen accused human beings were arrested in the inferno case and incriminating literature, stuff to fabricate IEDs, electronic tackle and money received through hawala channels were seized from influence possession of the accused.

8. Fight is further stated in probity counter affidavit that the be included appellant in the guise warm a religious preacher was stimulus, motivating and abetting Muslim youths, who sought his guidance drag waging violent jihad and carriage and joining the Islamic Refurbish of Syria and Iraq.

Afterwards assessing the role of authority present appellant and involvement nucleus the instant case present the accused was arrested on 05.02.2016 Tighten up Dell laptop and 03 portable phones were seized from significance accused at the time finance his arrest. During the path of investigation, the voice example of present appellant was borrowed and sent to the DFS Gandhinagar, Gujarat for comparison truthful speeches made by him recognize the value of expert opinion, which has bent obtained and is a quarter of the chargesheet.

9.

Since probity chargesheet has already been filed in this case and acquiring regard to the fact dump at appropriate time the defendant had not sought the simulate of the report, which was relied upon before the court; the appeal was filed in a few words and even in the fascination, as informed by Mr. Sharma, no ground was taken put off the copy of the account was not supplied, we discover no ground to entertain that appeal.

The same is fired. However, the question of unsanctioned raised by the appellant in your right mind kept open.