U.P. ANTF likely to have wider jurisdiction, special court
The jurisdiction of the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Narcotics Task Force (ANTF) is likely to be expanded, and a proposal to establish a special court for its cases is in the pipeline. The move aims to improve coordination in narcotics-related operations across the state and facilitate the creation of a collective database.
During his visit to the ANTF headquarters to review its working on Thursday, the new director general of police (DGP), Rajeev Krishna, directed the ANTF officials to send the proposal to authorities concerned for jurisdiction expansion and the setting up of a special court in line with provisions available to other specialised state and central agencies, according to a press statement.
The objective is to strengthen the ANTF operational capabilities and enhance effectiveness in tackling the growing menace of narcotics trafficking, which poses a significant threat to the youth and society, the statement said.
The ANTF was established in August 2022 to curb production, sale and purchase of narcotic substances in the state. The agency is also meant to take action against listed drug peddlers, mafia and gangs and maintain coordination with central agencies like Narcotics Control Bureau, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Financial Intelligence Unit and Central Bureau of Narcotics to accelerate operational activities.
A senior police official pointed out that several specialised agencies like U.P. Anti Terror Squad (ATS), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) operate with a wide-ranging jurisdiction of their police stations. These agencies, he said, have special courts for better coordination during the trial and other legal proceedings.
'In the absence of wide-range jurisdiction and no special courts, the ANTF has struggled to develop into a robust unit like the U.P. ATS and STF,' he said, adding, 'The ANTF is considered to be a dumping ground for police officers since its formation on August 23, 2022'.
According to the statement, the DGP also directed the ANTF to ensure an increase in the quantity of narcotics recovered in the state. As per the ANTF, it has seized narcotics, drugs and psychotropic substances worth only ₹250 crore since its formation. The agency initiated action under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS Act), 1988 only in nine cases and under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 in just 18 cases.
The DGP laid stress on the importance of gathering high-quality intelligence and maintaining vigilance on the dark web, where digital networks of narcotics operate. He also directed the ANTF to establish coordination with financial transaction agencies and create a comprehensive financial database at the headquarters level. The ANTF, however, has also collaborated with the agriculture department to conduct digital mapping of narcotics cultivation.
The DGP emphasised that the ANTF will be developed not just as a unit but as the sharpest weapon of the U.P. Police in the fight against narcotics. The inspection was attended by senior officials, including ADG (crime), IG (ANTF), SP (ANTF), and other officers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
44 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Preventive detention is an extraordinary power, use it sparingly: SC
Preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly, said the Supreme Court as it set aside an order to detain a man indulging in money lending in Kerala. A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan said the circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail in cases against him, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "Therefore, the order of detention dated June 20, 2024, and the impugned judgment dated September 4, 2024, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam are hereby set aside. In the attending facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed," the bench said in its order passed on Friday. Noting that the power of preventive detention finds recognition in the Constitution under Article 22(3)(b), the bench said, "The provision for preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state that must be used sparingly. It curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, must not be used in the ordinary course of nature." The bench said the contention of the detaining authority that the detainee, Rajesh, who used to run a private financing company called 'Rithika Finance', was violating the conditions of bail imposed upon him in the cases that have been considered for passing the order of detention. It said that pertinently, no application has been filed by the respondent in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions, if any, and moreover, have not even been spelt out during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the Kerala High Court order, which affirmed the preventive detention order of the Palakkad district magistrate. "Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we have no doubt that the order of detention cannot be sustained. The circumstances pointed out in the order by the detaining authority may be ground enough for the state to approach the competent courts for cancellation of bail, but it cannot be said that the same warranted his preventive detention. "We clarify that if such an application for cancellation of the detainee's bail is made by the respondent - state, the same must be decided uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove," the bench noted. It referred to the provisions of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, and said that the object of the statute was to provide for effective prevention of certain anti-social activities in the state. The bench said Section 2(j) of the state law defines 'goonda' as a person who indulges in activities that are harmful to the maintenance of public order, either directly or indirectly, and includes persons who are bootleggers, counterfeiters, drug offenders, and loan sharks, among others. The bench also said that under Section 3 of the Act, the district magistrate so authorised or the government may pass an order directing detention of a "known goonda" to prevent commission of antisocial activities within the state of Kerala. "Coming to the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act was not justified in law," the top court said, as it noted four cases lodged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, cited by the police for recommending preventive detention to the district magistrate. The police stated that the detainee was a "notorious goonda" in the district and a threat to the society at large. Aggrieved by the order of his detention dated June 20, 2024, Rajesh's wife filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court assailing the order and praying for a writ of habeas corpus to the state against the "illegal" detention of her husband. The high court on September 4 last year affirmed the order of preventive detention. Aggrieved by the order, the detainee's wife moved the top court challenging the decision. On December 10, 2024, the top court ordered the detainee to be released as his maximum period of detention under the Act was over.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
NIA chargesheets Maoist operative in targeted killing of Army personnel in Chhattisgarh
RAIPUR: National Investigation Agency (NIA) has filed a chargesheet against a Maoist operative in connection with the targeted killing of Indian Army personnel Motiram Achala in Chhattisgarh's Bastar. The incident, which occurred in February 2024, is being investigated as part of a larger conspiracy by the banned CPI (Maoist) group to spread terror in the region. The accused, Ashu Korsa from Bijapur district, has been charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. These include Section 302 read with 120B (murder and criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, and Sections 16, 18, 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA. The chargesheet was filed before the NIA Special Court in Jagdalpur. According to the NIA, the case (RC-13/2024/NIA/RPR) was originally registered by the local police and later taken over by the agency on February 29, 2024. The investigation revealed that Korsa was actively involved in a conspiracy orchestrated by the CPI (Maoist) to assassinate Motiram Achala, an Indian Army jawan. Achala was shot dead by armed Maoist cadres on February 25, 2024, while visiting a village fair in Useli, located in the Amabeda area of Kanker district, along with his family. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Device Made My Power Bill Drop Overnight elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Pre-Order Undo The killing was part of a deliberate plan by Maoist operatives to target security personnel and instill fear among the local population. The NIA stated that Korsa was an active armed cadre of the Kuyemari Area Committee of the CPI (Maoist)'s North Bastar Division. Along with another senior Maoist leader, he had identified and executed the killing of Achala in the crowded local marketplace. Korsa was arrested in December 2024 following intensive investigations. The NIA described the act as part of a broader strategy by Maoist insurgents to disrupt peace and spread terror in tribal-dominated regions of Chhattisgarh. The agency confirmed that investigations into the case are still ongoing to identify and apprehend other conspirators involved in the deadly plot.
Deccan Herald
an hour ago
- Deccan Herald
Karnataka HC declines to intervene in graft case against KIADB official
The petitioner, at present working as Joint Director of Municipal Administration, had moved the high court challenging the proceedings under sections 7 (a) and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
