Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.22 seconds)
Vinod Kumar Barwar @ Vinod Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 2 April, 2024 cites

Smt. Maina Devi vs State Of U.P. on 27 September, 2013

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 4 - Cited by 9 - R Singh - Full Document

Ram Sharan Maurya vs State Of U. P. on 18 November, 2020

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 77 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1   2 3 Next