Mumbai: Alleged IS recruit Areeb Majeed strongly opposed the move by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to frame a fresh charge of terror financing against him. Majeed submitted that the prosecution is attempting an endless prosecutorial improvisation by invoking a grave anti-terror provision after nearly a decade of litigation.The newly proposed charge under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is based exclusively on Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) documents from Kuwait. The prosecution had invoked the charge based the allegation that one Abdullah Hadi—who was reportedly under investigation by Kuwaiti authorities for financing banned groups—allegedly transferred $1,000 to Majeed. However, Majeed pointed to chronological contradiction, submitting that every foreign document relied upon repeatedly cites the alleged monetary transfer as happening in 2013 while his travel is dated to 2014. “Even according to the prosecution, the accused allegedly travelled in May 2014 and the allegations concerning the present case relate to the year 2014. However, the documents received from Kuwait, which form the sole basis for invoking Section 17 UAPA, do not allege any transaction in 2014 whatsoever. On the contrary, the documents repeatedly and specifically state that the alleged transfer of $1,000 occurred during 2013. This contradiction is fatal and goes to the root of the matter,” Majeed submitted.Majeed further submitted that the entire foundation of the proposed charge is based exclusively upon documents which were already relied upon by the prosecution in 2015 and 2016. “The prosecution has sought to introduce an entirely new and substantially more serious allegation of “terror financing” after more than a decade of proceedings, at a stage when the trial has already reached its concluding phase and as many as 77 witnesses have already been examined..,” Majeed submitted.The court is likely to pronounce an order on the plea on June 20.Opposing Majeed’s plea, the NIA submitted, “The contention of the accused that the MLAT documents are weak in nature or constitute hearsay evidence is wholly misconceived, untenable in law, and liable to be rejected. It is respectfully submitted that the documents received through official channels pursuant to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) requests carry a presumption of authenticity and legality, having been transmitted through duly recognised governmental and diplomatic procedures in accordance with law,” the NIA submitted.Majeed and his three friends, Aman Tandel, Fahad Shaikh and Shaheen Tanki, all from Kalyan, went to Iraq in May in 2014. They allegedly disappeared from there and reportedly joined the ISIS. While Majeed returned the country, the trio is yet to return. Reports from 2015 suggested that Tanki was killed fighting for Iraq after one of his friend’s in Kalyan received a message claiming that he had died. However, his family denied the claims. In March the court issued a formal proclamation against three absconding accused.In April, the NIA filed its fifth supplementary chargesheet against Majeed and invoked the charge under section 17 of the UAPA which specifically deals with the punishment for raising funds for a terrorist act. Rebutting Majeed’s submissions, the NIA submitted that the material collected during the course of investigations unequivocally gives rise to a grave suspicion, prima facie indicating that fund were transferred to and received by the accused through the transactions forming part of the present case. “The accused was actively involved in activities having nexus with and linked to a terrorist organisation, as reflected from the material forming part of the chargesheet and supplementary investigations… the financial transactions in question were not innocent, routine, or innocuous in nature, but prima facie disclose a connection with activities prohibited under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act..,” the NIA submitted while seeking to frame charges under the new section.
