Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 146 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Sharan Maurya vs State Of U. P. on 18 November, 2020

Smt. Nazima vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil ... on 16 December, 2023

20. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law and the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Maina Devi versus State of U.P. 2013(83) ACC 902 and Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Sri Ram versus State of U.P. 2007(2) ALJ 483 (All), and Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Others 2018 SCC Online AII 5986, this Court is of the view that the property, which was attached, was ancestral property of the appellant's husband and not by commission of any offence triable under the Act as it is settled law that the properties being made subject matter of attachment under Section 14 of the Act must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence triable under the Act and also the impugned orders were not passed on reasons which are relevant and material. In the present case from the perusal of the impugned order dated 06.4.2022 and record it appears that only on the basis of the police report, the District Magistrate has attached the property in question, no material was supplied to the District Magistrate to have reasons to believe that the property in question was acquired by the gangster i.e. the present appellant's husband as a result of commission of any offence triable under this Act. It vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate also from the record. The District Magistrate has no material in support of the police report that the property in question was acquired by the husband of the present appellant being gangster even though the proceedings were not followed as per the provisions of the Act. From the record it transpires that the appellant's husband had acquired the property from his ancestors much prior to the registration of criminal cases and imposition of Gangster Act, which was invoked in the year 2021 and the impugned order of attachment was passed in mechanical manner without application of mind and is arbitrary. Thus the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri and the impugned order dated 01.04.2023 passed under Section 16 of the Gangster Act in Misc.
Allahabad High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S Ahmed - Full Document

Sushil Kumar Jaiswal And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 3 February, 2023

21. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Maina Devi versus State of U.P. 2013(83) ACC 902 and Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Sri Ram versus State of U.P. 2007(2) ALJ 483 (All), this Court is of the view that the attached land property is the ancestral property of appellants and the attached vehicle belongs to the son of appellant No. 1 and the prosecution has failed to prove its case that the properties in question, which were attached, were acquired by them after accumulating money after committing offence as it is settled law that the property being made subject matter of attachment under Section 14 of the Act must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence triable under the Act. The impugned orders were not passed on reasons which are relevant and material. In the present case from the perusal of the court orders and record it appears that only on the basis of the police report the D.M. has attached the property in question, no material was supplied to the District Magistrate to have reasons to believe that the property in question was acquired by the gangster the present appellants as a result of commission of any offence triable under this Act. It vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate also from the record it appears that the District Magistrate has no material in support of the police report that the property in question was acquired by the present appellants being gangsters even though the proceedings was not followed as per the provisions of the Act. While passing the impugned orders of attachment the order was passed in mechanical manner without application of mind and is arbitrary. Thus the order passed by learned Special Judge Gangsters Act / Additional Session Judge Court No.-5 Unnao is also illegal and the same is also liable to be quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - S Ahmed - Full Document

Sudha Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Law ... on 20 February, 2024

21. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law and the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Maina Devi versus State of U.P. 2013(83) ACC 902 and Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Sri Ram versus State of U.P. 2007(2) ALJ 483 (All), and Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Others 2018 SCC Online AII 5986, this Court is of the view that the properties, which were attached, were not acquired by the appellants by commission of any offence triable under the Act as it is settled law that the properties being made subject matter of attachment under Section 14 of the Act must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence triable under the Act and also the impugned orders were not passed on reasons which are relevant and material. In the present case from the perusal of the impugned order dated 23/27.04.2022 and record it appears that only on the basis of the police report, the District Magistrate, Amethi has attached the properties in question, no material was supplied to the District Magistrate to have reasons to believe that the properties in question were acquired by the gangster i.e. the present appellants as a result of commission of any offence triable under this Act. It vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate also from the record. The District Magistrate has no material in support of the police report that the properties in question were acquired by the appellants being gangster even though the procedures were not followed as per the provisions of the Act. From the record it transpires that the appellants had acquired the property much prior to the imposition of Gangster Act, which was invoked in the year 2022 and the impugned order of attachment was passed in mechanical manner without application of mind and is arbitrary. Thus, it appears that the impugned order dated 23/27.04.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Amethi attaching/seizing the property of the appellants and the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Amethi, rejecting the representations of the appellants and making reference to the learned trial court and order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the trial court are illegal, arbitrary and have been passed in a cursory manner without considering the material available on record and without considering the explanation/reply given by the appellants, thus, the orders impugned hereinabove are liable to be quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - S Ahmed - Full Document

Nabi Sarvar vs State Of U.P. Through The Principal ... on 27 February, 2024

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law and the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Maina Devi versus State of U.P. 2013(83) ACC 902 and Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Sri Ram versus State of U.P. 2007(2) ALJ 483 (All), and Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Others 2018 SCC Online AII 5986, this Court is of the view that the properties, which were attached, were acquired by the appellant with the aid of his earning from legal resources and not by commission of any offence triable under the Act as it is settled law that the properties being made subject matter of attachment under Section 14 of the Act must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence triable under the Act and also the impugned orders were not passed on reasons which are relevant and material. In the present case from the perusal of the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 and record it appears that only on the basis of the police report, the District Magistrate has attached the property in question, no material was supplied to the District Magistrate to have reasons to believe that the property in question was acquired by the gangster the present appellant as a result of commission of any offence triable under this Act. It vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate also from the record. It appears that the District Magistrate has no material in support of the police report that the property in question was acquired by the present appellant being gangster even though the proceedings were not followed as per the provisions of the Act. It appears that the appellant was having enough source of income from his farming, milk distribution as well as fisheries and even the properties were acquired by the appellant much prior to the registration of criminal cases and imposition of Gangster Act, which was invoked in the year 2020 and the impugned order of attachment was passed in mechanical manner without application of mind and is arbitrary. Thus the impugned orders dated 23.09.2020 and 15.03.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar and the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Gangster Act Ambedkar Nagar in Misc.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Ahmed - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Barwar @ Vinod Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 2 April, 2024

22. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law and the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Maina Devi versus State of U.P. 2013(83) ACC 902 and Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Sri Ram versus State of U.P. 2007(2) ALJ 483 (All), and Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Others 2018 SCC Online AII 5986, this Court is of the view that the property, which was attached, was acquired by the appellant with the aid of his earning from legal resources and not by commission of any offence triable under the Act as it is settled law that the properties being made subject matter of attachment under Section 14 of the Act must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence triable under the Act and also the impugned orders were not passed on reasons which are relevant and material. In the present case from the perusal of the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 (subsequent amended order dated 11.01.2023) and record, it appears that only on the basis of the police report, the District Magistrate has attached the property in question, no material was supplied to the District Magistrate to have reasons to believe that the property in question was acquired by the gangster, the present appellant as a result of commission of any offence triable under this Act. It vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate also from the record. It appears that the District Magistrate has no material in support of the police report that the property in question was acquired by the present appellant being gangster even though the proceedings were not followed as per the provisions of the Act. It appears that the appellant was having enough source of income, from which the appellant had acquired the property, thus, the impugned order of attachment was passed in mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and is arbitrary. Thus, the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Gangster Act, Court No.6, Ayodhya as well as order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya and order dated 26.12.2022 (subsequent amended order dated 11.01.2023) passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya are liable to be quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S Ahmed - Full Document

Satish Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 18 April, 2024

22. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law and the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Maina Devi versus State of U.P. 2013(83) ACC 902 and Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Sri Ram versus State of U.P. 2007(2) ALJ 483 (All), and Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Others 2018 SCC Online AII 5986, this Court is of the view that the property, which was attached, was acquired by the appellant with the aid of his earning from legal resources and not by commission of any offence triable under the Act as it is settled law that the properties being made subject matter of attachment under Section 14 of the Act must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence triable under the Act and also the impugned orders were not passed on reasons which are relevant and material. In the present case from the perusal of the impugned order dated 01.09.2018 and record, it appears that only on the basis of the police report, the District Magistrate has attached the properties in question, no material was supplied to the District Magistrate to have reasons to believe that the properties in question were acquired by the gangster, the present appellant as a result of commission of any offence triable under this Act. It vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate also from the record. It appears that the District Magistrate has no material in support of the police report that the properties and vehicles in question were acquired by the present appellant being gangster even though the proceedings were not followed as per the provisions of the Act. It appears that the appellant was having enough source of income, from which the appellant had acquired the properties, thus, the impugned order of attachment was passed in mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and is arbitrary. Thus, the order dated 03.09.2021 passed by learned Special Judge Gangster Act/Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.5, District-Unnao as well as order dated 17.06.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Unnao are liable to be quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S Ahmed - Full Document

Babu Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 3 July, 2024

26. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law and the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Maina Devi versus State of U.P. 2013(83) ACC 902 and Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Sri Ram versus State of U.P. 2007(2) ALJ 483 (All), and Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and Others 2018 SCC Online AII 5986, this Court is of the view that the properties, which were attached, were acquired by the appellant with the aid of his earning from legal resources and from his ancestors, and not by commission of any offence, triable under the Act, as it is settled law that the properties being made subject matter of attachment under Section 14 of the Act must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence triable under the Act and also the impugned orders were not passed on reasons which are relevant and material. In the present case from the perusal of the impugned orders dated 08.06.2022 and 27.06.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, and record it appears that only on the basis of the police report, the District Magistrate has attached the property in question, no material was supplied to the District Magistrate to have reasons to believe that the property in question was acquired by the present appellant as a result of commission of any offence triable under this Act. It vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate also from the record. It appears that the District Magistrate has no material in support of the police report that the property in question was acquired by the present appellant being gangster even though the proceedings were not followed as per the provisions of the Act. It appears that the appellant was having enough source of income from his business as well as at his native place, from which the appellant had acquired the properties and even the properties were acquired by the appellant much prior to the registration of criminal cases and imposition of Gangster Act, which was invoked in the year 2011 and the impugned orders of attachment were passed in mechanical manner without application of mind and is arbitrary. Thus the impugned orders dated 08.06.2022 and 27.06.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, and the impugned order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court No. 13, Lakhimpur Kheri, are illegal and the same are liable to be quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S Ahmed - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next