Guwahati, May 22: Lawyers of DHD-J leaders Jewel Garlosa and Niranjan Hojai today submitted in court that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has invoked certain sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which are not applicable in the case.
During the arguments on the framing of charges in NIA case number 1/09 and 2/09 registered against the two DHD-J leaders and others, the counsels of Garlosa and Hojai said the sections under which the NIA had registered the cases against them were not applicable.
The two cases were registered in connection with alleged diversion of government funds meant for the North Cachar Hill Autonomous Council for procurement of arms, ammunition and other terrorist acts.
“Certain sections of the IPC like Section 121 and some sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act such as Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 inserted by the investigating agency are not in consonance with the facts and circumstances of the cases. Therefore, we have appealed for not framing of charges under these sections and discharge of our clients,” counsel of DHD-J leaders Bijon Kumar Mahajan told reporters today.
In case number 1/09, the NIA filed the chargesheet under Sections 120 (B), 121, 121A IPC and Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and section 25 (1) (d) of Arms Act.
Similarly, in case number 2/09, the investigating agency field a chargesheet in the court under Sections 20 B, 121, 122A of IPC and Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and Section 25 (i)(d) of the Arms Act.
The lawyers of the DHD-J leaders stated that NIA in its chargesheet mentions that they had demanded a separate state for the Dimasas comprising Dimasa-inhabited areas of North Cachar Hills (now Dima Hasao) district and Karbi Anglong district.
According to their lawyers, demanding a separate state is within the ambit of the Constitution and there is a constitutional provision for it.
They claimed that since the DHD-J had not sought secession from India, invoking sections pertaining to waging of war against the country and other terrorist acts are not applicable in these cases.