Srinagar, August 8: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected a government appeal against the acquitted order passed by a special NIA court in favor of the accused in a case related to the illegal activities (prevention) Act in South Kashmir.
Special NIA Court, Anantnag acquitted Ghulam Mohammad Loan of a village in Srigufwara on February 8, 2012 on September 8, 2012 in a case registered against him, after checking the pasting of posters, after checking the pasting of posters by Terror Terror Terror Outfit, Hezbull Mujhyidance, putting up the selected or putting in the danger of the SARPS. Were.
Hearing the appeal by the Center area of J&K against Bari, the Division Bench of the High Court said that it is clear that an act is called as “illegal activity”, it should be one that aims to support a part of a part of the region of India or to bring a part of any person or a part of any part of any person to bring a part of any person or a part of any person.
In their eight -page order passed on 31 July, Justice Sanjay Parihar and Justice Sanjeev Kumar said, “Act or action may also fall within the word ‘illegal activity’, such as it is a purpose, obstructed, or aimed at interrupting India’s sovereignty and regional integrity, obstructed, or the purpose or which causes disagreement against India or causes it.”
The order states that the writing on objectionable posters was done only with purpose and its purpose was to intimidate the elected punches that they would be killed if they do not resign from their positions.
“Such words cannot be asked to bring about part of the region of India or the session of India, nor is it aimed at interrupting any sovereignty and regional integrity of India, question, interrupted, disrupted or objective.
According to the plain definition of the term “illegal activities”, it said that under Section 2 (O) of the Act responsible for the accused, it does not fall under the scope of the word “illegal activity”.
The order said that the content of Section 13 of the UA (P) Act was not done in this way.
“The trial court should have discharged the defendant of the charge and instead a proper charge was made under the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). We could send the case back to the trial court to frame such an allegation, but in relation to the fact that the defendant has already faced the trial ordinance for more than eight years and it would not be appropriate to do so.
The court said, “For the foregoing reasons, we do not get any merit in this appeal and accordingly, has been rejected.”
The court also said that it is clearly clear that the crime that was charged by the defendant by the trial court has not been proved by any evidence.
“(PW -6) In addition to the statement of the prosecution, the witness -6 that the sample taken by the police in the presence of the Executive Magistrate is similar to writing on posters, so there is no material connecting the defendant with the preparation and paste of aggressive posters at electric poles in the city.”
