Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Of J&K Through Sho … vs Gh. Mohammad Lone on 31 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No. 1
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CrlA(D) 45/2024
CrlM 977/2024
Union Territory of J&K through SHO Police
Station Srigufwara, Anantnag
...Appellant(s)
Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG
Vs.
Gh. Mohammad Lone
S/O Mohammad Abdullah Lone
R/O: Khushroi Kalan, Srigufwara,
Anantnag
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Zahid Hussain Dar, Advocate with
Mr. Zahid Afzal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
31.07.2025
Per: Sanjeev Kumar-J : (Oral)
01. This appeal by the Union Territory of Jammu &
Kashmir is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated
20th February, 2024, passed by the Court of Special Judge
Designated Under NIA Act, Anantnag [“the trial Court”], in
File No. 44/TADA titled “Union Territory of J&K through
P/S Srigufwara Vs. Gh. Mohammad Lone”
CrlA (D) No. 45/2024 Page No. 1
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
05.08.25
02. Briefly put, the prosecution case as presented before
the trial Court is that, on the basis of information received
from a reliable source, Police Station Srigufwara, on 8th
September, 2012, registered FIR No. 59/2012 for offences
under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention), Act,
1967, [for short “UA(P) Act”]. The information which became
the basis of registration of FIR was that the proscribed
organization Hizbul Mujahideen had affixed some posters on
electric poles threatening the elected Panchs/Sarpanchs to
resign or face dire consequences.
03. On the basis of suspicion, five persons including the
respondent were rounded up by the Police for interrogation.
Their specimen handwriting was taken and, on comparison
with the handwriting on the offending posters, the Police
concluded that the affixing of the offending posters on the
electric poles was handiwork of respondent. Accordingly, the
Investigating Officer sent the specimen handwriting of the
respondent taken in the presence of the Executive
Magistrate to the FSL for comparison with the handwriting
on the offending posters.
04. The statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C
were recorded. After obtaining the opinion from the FSL and
having regard to the evidence recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C, the challan was presented before the trial Court.
Vide order dated 19th June, 2018, charge under Section 13
CrlA (D) No. 45/2024 Page No. 2
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
05.08.25
UA(P) Act was framed against the respondent. The
respondent denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In
order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1
Bashir Ahmad Rather, PW-2 Ab. Rashid Rather, PW-3 Mohd
Shaban Nengroo, PW-4 Asadullah Lone, PW-5 Sajad Ahmad
Wani (Executive Magistrate), PW-6 Altaf Ahmad (FSL
Srinagar), PW-7 Inspector Shameem Ahmad, PW-8 ASI Nisar
Ahmad and PW-9 Inspector Gh. Hassan Lone. After the
conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement under
Section 342 Cr.P.C was dispensed with, and the matter was
heard finally.
05. The trial Court, having heard the prosecution and the
defense, and having regard to the evidence that had come on
the record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had
miserably failed to connect the respondent with the
commission of offence with which he was charged.
According, vide judgment impugned the respondent was
acquitted of the charge. It is this judgment of acquittal
which is called in question by the Union Territory of Jammu
& Kashmir before us.
06. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record, we are of the considered
opinion that the evidence on record does not support the
charge. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have not supported the
prosecution case and were declared hostile on the request of
CrlA (D) No. 45/2024 Page No. 3
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
05.08.25
prosecution. During cross-examination, no incriminating
material has been elicited from the aforesaid witnesses. The
statement of PW-4 Asadullah Lone, who is a witness to the
seizure of the offending posters, also does not advance the
case of prosecution in any manner. He has even denied
having made any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Faced with the aforesaid position, the prosecution also
prayed for declaring the aforesaid witness as hostile, which
was allowed by the trial Court.
07. The statement of PW-5, an Executive Magistrate, is only
to the extent of witnessing the taking of specimen
handwriting of the respondent and is not a witness to prove
that the posters were actually written and pasted by the
respondent on the electric poles. Similarly PW-6 Altaf
Ahmad, an expert from the FSL, submitted report bearing
No. FSL/152-Doc/Sgr dated 30.09.2013. As per his
statement, he found similarity between the specimen
handwriting and the handwriting found on the posters. That
is the only incriminating material that has come on record.
The rest of the prosecution witnesses are the Investigating
Officers, who investigated the matter from time to time.
08. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is abundantly
clear that the offence with which the respondent was
charged by the trial Court has not been proved by any
cogent evidence. Other than the statement of PW-6 Altaf
CrlA (D) No. 45/2024 Page No. 4
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
05.08.25
Ahmad, that the specimen writing taken by the police in the
presence of Executive Magistrate is similar to the writing on
the offending posters, there is no material connecting the
respondent with the preparation and affixing of the
offending posters on the electric poles in the town.
09. Apart from the nature of allegations against the
respondent and the material collected by the Investigating
Officer during the investigation, the ingredients of Section
13 are not made out. For facility of reference Section 13 of
the UA(P) Act is set out below:-
13. Punishment for unlawful activities.–
(1) Whoever–
(a) takes part in or commits, or
(b) advocates, abets, advises or incites the commission
of, any unlawful activity, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever, in any way, assists any unlawful activity
of any association, declared unlawful under section 3,
after the notification by which it has been so declared
has become effective under sub-section
(3) of that section, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to five
years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to any treaty,
agreement or convention entered into between the
Government of India and the Government of any other
country or to any negotiations there for carried on byCrlA (D) No. 45/2024 Page No. 5
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document05.08.25
any person authorised in this behalf by the
Government of India.
10. From reading of Section 13, it clearly comes out that
offence under Section 13 of the UA(P) Act is made out
against a person who takes part in, or commits; or
advocates, abets, advises or incites the commission of, any
unlawful activity. The term “unlawful activity” is defined in
Section 2(o) of the UA(P) Act, which for facility of reference is
set out below:
2(o) “unlawful activity”, in relation to an individual or
association, means any action taken by such
individual or association (whether by committing an
act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs
or by visible representation or otherwise),–
(i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring
about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a
part of the territory of India or the secession of a part
of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites
any individual or group of individuals to bring about
such cession or secession; or
(ii) which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is
intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of India; or
(iii) which causes or is intended to cause disaffection
against India;
11. From plain reading of the above it is evident that, for an
act to be termed as “unlawful activity”, it must be one which
is intended or supports any claim to bring about the cession
CrlA (D) No. 45/2024 Page No. 6
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
05.08.25
of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of
territory of India from the Union or which incites any
individual or group of individuals to bring about such
cession or secession. The act or action may also fall within
the term “unlawful activity” as if it disclaims, questions,
disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of India or which causes or is intended to
cause disaffection against India.
12. The writings on the offending posters were only aimed
at and intended to intimidate elected Panchs by extending
them a threat that in case they do not resign from their
positions they would be done away with. Such words in
writing cannot be said to be intended to bring about cession
or session of part of the territory of India from the Union nor
does it disclaim, question, disrupt or is intended to disrupt
any sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. These
words can also be not understood to cause or intended to
cause disaffection against India. Going by the plain
definition of the term “unlawful activities” the act attributed
to the respondent does not fall within the purview of the
term of “unlawful activity” under Section 2(o) of the Act.
13. The ingredients of Section 13 of the UA(P) Act were thus
not made out. In the instance case, the trial Court should
have discharged the respondent of the charge and instead
framed an appropriate charge under the Ranbir Penal Code
CrlA (D) No. 45/2024 Page No. 7
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
05.08.25
(RPC). We could have remanded the matter back to the trial
Court for framing such a charge, but having regard to the
fact that respondent has already faced the ordeal of trial for
more than eight years and, therefore it would not be
appropriate to do so.
14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in
this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
31 .07.2025
"Mir Arif"
(i) Whether the order is reportable? Yes.
(ii) Whether the order is speaking? Yes.
CrlA (D) No. 45/2024 Page No. 8
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
05.08.25