Moga court acquits British national Jaggi Johal, 7 others in UAPA case
The court gave accused Johal, Taljeet Singh, Ramandeep Singh, Dharaminder, Hardeep Singh, Anil Kumar, Jagtar Singh and Tarlok Singh a benefit of doubt for irregularities in the laid down procedures for prosecution in anti-terror law.
A Moga district court on Tuesday acquitted eight persons, including a British national, Jagtar Singh Johal alias Jaggi Johal, in the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case by granting them ‘benefit of the doubt.’
The court gave accused Johal, Taljeet Singh, Ramandeep Singh, Dharaminder, Hardeep Singh, Anil Kumar, Jagtar Singh and Tarlok Singh a benefit of doubt for irregularities in the laid down procedures for prosecution in anti-terror law.
In his 97-page order, the additional sessions judge Harjeet Singh found the shoddy police investigation and lack of sanction to prosecute under UAPA.
“This court came to the conclusion that there is no valid sanction to prosecute the accused. Thus, all the accused are liable to be acquitted on this score alone under Sections 17,18,19,20 of UAPA,” reads the order.
Arrested in 2017
A British citizen Johal and others were accused of being involved in targeted killings reported from April 2016 to October 2017, including the murder of RSS leader Brigadier Jagdish Gagneja (retd). Johal was arrested in November 2017 and has been in jail since then.
After his acquittal in this case, Johal is unlikely to walk out of jail as he is still facing trials in several other anti-terror cases.
Johal’s lawyer, Jaspal Manjhpur, said Johal is currently lodged in Delhi’s Mandoli jail complex.
“He is still facing eight cases filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Johal got bail in one case, and we hope that his acquittal by the Moga court may make way for him in other cases as well,” Manjhpur said. Before shifting to Delhi prison in 2019, Johal was lodged in Faridkot and Nabha jails in Punjab.
Police, in its chargesheet, had claimed that Johal had admitted to meeting Harminder Singh alias Mintu (now dead), then chief of Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF) in France and giving him £3,000. Mintu allegedly provided £800 for procuring weapons used in target killings in Punjab.
The judicial officer pointed out that the prosecution has failed to establish on record that all the accused were members of any banned organisation.
The court stated that as per rules, sanction of prosecution is granted by the government on recommendation of an independent agency after review of evidence. But in this case, no such authority was appointed by the state government to make an independent review of the evidence gathered by the investigating agency. No report submitted by such an authority to enable the state government to accord sanction was produced. Therefore, the sanction accorded by the state government for prosecution of the offence under Chapter IV is against the spirit of the mandatory provisions under Section 45 of the above Act.
“In the chargesheet, it was not mentioned to which terrorist organisation, as referred in the first schedule, the accused were associated. It is a fundamental flaw. What sort of terrorist act is to be defined under section 2(K) of the UAPA was committed by the terrorist organisation, was not at all described in a nutshell in the chargesheet,” observed the court.
The order further read that the accused were completely kept in the dark as regards the terrorist organisation found incorporated in the schedule.
“The nature of terrorist acts perpetrated by the terrorist organisation was also put to the accused through the relevant charge. Therefore, the charge framed under Section 20 of the Act is vitiated.”
Shoddy probe
It further added that there is no evidence that the act of the accused was an act against the sovereignty or integrity or unity of India.
The court mentioned that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the commission of the offences under Sections 16 and 18 of the UAPA, by all the accused.
Pointing out the shoddy probe by police, the court said: “Material part of investigation was conducted by an inspector rank officer which was against the mandatory provision that no police officer below the rank of a deputy superintendent of police or a police officer of an equivalent rank shall investigate the offence.”
