KOCHI: The Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam, has held that merely because an office of the banned Popular Front of India (PFI) was functioning in a building, it cannot be said that the property in question constitutes “proceeds of terrorism” as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
“There is no specific allegation that the property in question was ever used for any terrorist activity or that it was intended to be used for such activities. In the absence of such evidence, it is not possible to find that the property comes under the definition of ‘proceeds of terrorism’,” the Special Court for NIA Cases held.
The court passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Abdul Salam Madathil and Sulaikhabi of Thana, Kannur, challenging the attachment of their property.
The petitioners stated that the property is a commercial building in Thana, Kannur, comprising several rooms that had been leased to different tenants as a source of livelihood. They contended that the authorities ought to have considered that the attached property did not constitute proceeds of terrorism as contemplated under the UAPA.
The petitioners submitted that the rental income from the property was their only source of livelihood and that they had no connection with the banned organisation, including the PFI. One of the rooms in the building had been rented out to Faisal to operate the PFI office solely to earn rental income and not for carrying out any unlawful activities, they contended. They further argued that the attachment order had been passed mechanically, without application of mind and without providing them an opportunity to be heard.