Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Court says accused cannot be convicted under UAPA for an offence of 2002
At present,Vanzara is in judicial custody for his alleged role in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter killing case.
Principal District Judge G N Patel made this observation while acquitting the six accused in the states first Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Amendment) Act of 2004.
The Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS),had in 2006,arrested six Muslim youths Ahmedabad-based Nooruddin Sheikh,Abdul alias Peerali Sheikh,Haarish Ansari,Junaid Sayeed,Zaheed Khan and Vadodara resident Altaf Sheikh for their alleged association with the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and also for allegedly hatching a conspiracy to blow up some prominent buildings in the city to avenge the killings of Muslims in the 2002 riots.
Three of the accused Haarish,Junaid and Zaheed were charged under POTA for allegedly planning to kill senior BJP leaders. They were arrested by the ATS on a transfer warrant from the designated POTA court. Nooruddin,Peerali and Altaf were arrested later during the investigations that followed.
An independent FIR in connection with this case was filed in February 2006. The FIR states that the accused had in 2002,hatched a conspired to carry out blasts in some prominent building in the city. The ATS,had,however,come to know of this in 2006 while investigating an unrelated Arms Act case in the city.
In the absence of POTA,which was repealed in 2004,the ATS had,besides various sections of the IPC and other acts,invoked Section 17,18,19,20,23(1),38,39 and 40 of the UAPA of 2004.
Vanzara,the then Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) with the ATS,had headed the investigations in the case.
The court,in its verdict on December 11,said that as the alleged offence had taken place in 2002,invoking of UAPA was not maintainable and that the accused in the case cannot be tried under any provisions of this act,which had come into force two years later in 2004,and had no retrogressive provision in it.
The judge stated: I agree with the submission made by the Defence that for the year 2002,when this (read UAPA) Act was not in force,the accused can neither be booked nor convicted under the provisions of this Act. I also agree with the submission that no trials under the sections of UAPA,2004 can be conducted against the accused booked for an offence that took place in 2002.
Legal experts in the city said the framing of charges under UAPA was unconstitutional. There are provisions in the IPC that can be used against an investigating officer found guilty of having done this, retired Gujarat High Court judge and Lokayukt,Justice S M Soni,told The Indian Express. Such an act is equivalent to deliberate unlawful detention. If proved intentional,he (Vanzara) can even be prosecuted. he added.
Earlier,designated POTA judge N A Acharya,had in 2007,convicted Haarish,Junaid and Zaheed each for five years rigorous imprisonment for their alleged role in the POTA case,(DCB 16/03). The trio along with Nooruddin,Peerali and Altaf were being tried for the ATS case registered in February 2006 and were all acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt.
