Remanded

Balwan Rajput v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2020CRLP/2540/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an attachment order for a tractor. The court held the District Magistrate should have referred the matter to the court under Section 16 after declining to release the property under Section 15. The matter was remanded.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was remanded to the District Magistrate, Mahoba to take action in accordance with Section 16 of the Act and pass appropriate orders within one month.

Balwan Rajput Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2540 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Balwan Rajput Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State-Respondents.

¶7

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the attachment order dated 06.12.2019 whereby his Tractor has been attached.

¶8

We find that after such an order is passed under Section -14 of the The U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) and particularly when the petitioner has already represented against such attachment under Section 15 sub-section (1) of the Act, 1986 and the impugned order has been passed after hearing the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Mahoba ought to have referred the matter to the appropriate court under the provisions of Section 16 sub-section (1) of the Act, 1986. Section 16 subsection (1) of the Act, 1986 reads as under:

¶9

" 16. Inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by Court.- (1) Where no representation is made within the period specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15 or the District Magistrate does not release the property under sub-section (2) of Section 15 he shall refer the matter with his report to the court having jurisdiction to try an offence under this Act."

¶10

The impugned order does not show the District Magistrate has referred the matter to the court once he as come to a conclusion after hearing the petitioner that it was not a fit case for release of the property under sub-section (2) of Section 15. Section 15 in clear terms mandates that if the District Magistrate does not release the property under sub-section (2) of Section 15 he shall refer the matter with his report to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under this Act.

¶11

We therefore remit this matter to the District Magistrate, Mahoba to take action in accordance with law having regard to the mandates of Section 16 of the Act, 1986 and the observations made above. The District Magistrate shall consider the matter and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in his office.

¶12

The writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 25.2.2020 N Tiwari

Balwan Rajput v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwan Rajput v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Radhey Mohan Tripathi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Diwakar Mishra and 42 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bholu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Upendra Sah Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others