Extension of Investigation Time Upheld under UAP Act with Emphasis on Prosecutor's Report

Shareef Versus State Of Kerala

Shareef Versus State Of Kerala - 2013 (4)KLT 60 Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the extension of time for completing the investigation u/s 43D(2) of the UAP Act.
2. Applicability of the UAP Act to the alleged offences committed before the amendment by Act 3 of 2013.

Summary:

1. Validity of the extension of time for completing the investigation u/s 43D(2) of the UAP Act:
The appellant, accused No. 7, was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The investigation was not completed within ninety days, and the Public Prosecutor filed an application u/s 43D(2) of the UAP Act for an extension of time up to 180 days. The court below allowed this application, overruling the objections raised by the appellant. The appellant contended that the reasons stated for the extension were insufficient and did not satisfy the requirements of the proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 43D of the UAP Act. The court, however, found that the application filed by the Special Public Prosecutor satisfied the necessary requirements for extension of time and that all relevant aspects were considered. The Supreme Court's principles in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 602 were applied, emphasizing that the Public Prosecutor's report must indicate the progress of the investigation and justify the detention of the accused beyond ninety days. The court concluded that there was no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the order passed by the court below.

2. Applicability of the UAP Act to the alleged offences committed before the amendment by Act 3 of 2013:
The appellant argued that financial terrorism was included as an offence under the UAP Act only by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2012 (Act 3 of 2013), which came into force on 3.1.2013, and that the alleged offence was committed before this date. The court examined S. 15 of the UAP Act before and after its amendment. It was held that even without the insertion of the words 'economic security' in S. 15, the word "security" occurring in S. 15 of the Act before its amendment would cover 'economic security' as well. The definition of "property" in S. 2(h) includes cash, bank accounts, and funds, and any loss caused to the finance of the country by an act with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India would attract S. 15 of the Act. Therefore, the court concluded that the UAP Act applies to the allegations made by the prosecution, and the extension of the period to complete the investigation was justified. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal was dismissed.