Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Mohammad Zahid

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2022/88/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned the delay in filing a revision petition against an order setting aside a District Magistrate's seizure under the Essential Commodities Act. The court dismissed the revision, upholding the validity of property release, and directed the lower court to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; trial court directed to proceed and conclude trial within one year.

State of U.P. Vs Mohammad Zahid — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 88 of 2013

¶3

Revisionist :- State of U.P. Opposite Party :- Mohammad Zahid Counsel for Revisionist :- Govt. Advocate,Masood Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Faizal Ahmad Khan,Masood.Hasan,Mohammad.Naseerullah.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

On C.M. Application No.19162 of 2013

¶6

Heard.

¶7

This application seeks condonation of delay in filing the revision.

¶8

Reasons indicated in the affidavit filed along with the application are sufficient.

¶9

Application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned.

¶10

On Memo of Revision

¶11

Sri Mohammad Naseerullah, learned counsel for the opposite party has sought adjournment on the ground of his ill health.

¶12

Since the matter is pending since 2013 and a trivial question is involved in this revision, the case is being heard and decided on the basis of submissions made by the learned AGA and after perusing the record.

¶13

Heard Sri Vipul Gupta, learned AGA for the revisionist.

¶14

The present revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2010 instituted by the opposite party aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the District Magistrate,

¶15

Barabanki under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act. The District Magistrate, Barabanki vide order dated 30.4.2010 seized the gas cylinder and other instruments, which were allegedly taken out for black marketing by the opposite party.

¶16

Learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Barabanki vide order dated 16.10.2012 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the District Magistrate on the ground that before passing the order under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, the District Magistrate was required to issue notice to the owner of the property under Section 6B of the Essential Commodities Act and no such order was issued to the owner of the property, therefore, the order dated 30.4.2010 was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Before the seizure, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Barabanki vide order dated 8.12.2008 had already released the gas cylinder and other instruments after taking adequate security.

¶17

Considering the nature of case property, which was seized by the District Magistrate, this Court finds that releasing the said case property on taking adequate security by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was a valid order and there is no ground to interfere with the order passed under appeal in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

¶18

In view thereof, the present revision is dismissed. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, preferably, within a period of one year.

¶19

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the court concerned forthwith for compliance.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.7.2022

¶21

Rao/-

¶22

Digitally signed by CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Date: 2022.07.20 17:52:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. v. Mohammad Zahid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Mohammad Zahid

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

Mukhtar Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy.Deptt. of Home and Another

Mohammad Akib Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy Home Deptt Lko and Anr.

Ram Newal Yadav Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Balram Tiwari @ Shiv Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. in the Deptt. of Home and Another