Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.27 seconds)Section 15 in The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters And Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Ram Sharan Maurya vs State Of U. P. on 18 November, 2020
25. 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), 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 in question, which were attached, were acquired by appellant with the aid of her earning from legal resources and not by commission of any offence triable under the Act. 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. And also the seized property of the husband of the appellant namely Mujeeb Ahmad who is an accused in crime no. 0003 of 2021 was also released in favour of Mujeeb Ahmad by Learned Court below and the present appellant being the wife of co-accused in not even named in the F.I.R. but has only been implicated in the present case just for being the wife of co-accused. And also the impugned order was 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 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 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 Sitapur is also illegal and the same is also liable to be quashed.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Smt. Maina Devi vs State Of U.P. on 27 September, 2013
25. 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), 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 in question, which were attached, were acquired by appellant with the aid of her earning from legal resources and not by commission of any offence triable under the Act. 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. And also the seized property of the husband of the appellant namely Mujeeb Ahmad who is an accused in crime no. 0003 of 2021 was also released in favour of Mujeeb Ahmad by Learned Court below and the present appellant being the wife of co-accused in not even named in the F.I.R. but has only been implicated in the present case just for being the wife of co-accused. And also the impugned order was 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 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 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 Sitapur is also illegal and the same is also liable to be quashed.
Najmi Begum vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Basic Education ... on 17 June, 2022
27. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30-10-2021 passed by the court of learned Special Judge, Gangster Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Sitapur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 122 of 2021, Najmi Begum Vs. State, arising out of Case Crime No. 0003 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur is hereby quashed.