Allowed

Halima Suleman Hakam v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Dec 2010WP/1728/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Bombay High Court directed the release of the petitioner's immovable property, which was frozen during a narcotics trial, after his acquittal, subject to the State appealing or seeking interim relief within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the petitioner's immovable property if the State fails to appeal or apply for interim relief within specified periods.

Halima Suleman Hakam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 wp172810

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1728 OF 2010

¶5

Halima Suleman Hakam ...Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ayaz Khan for the Petitioner

¶9

Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P., for the State.

¶10

CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: 22ND DECEMBER, 2010

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P.

¶13

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the Competent Authority be directed to de-freeze the property of the petitioner forthwith.

¶14

The petitioner was tried for offence punishable under Section 29 read with Section 8(c) and Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act

¶15

2 wp172810

¶16

vide N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 42/2008 before the Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Cases at Mumbai, being accused No. 3. The said Court, by its judgment and order dated 22nd May, 2009, has acquitted the petitioner of the charge framed against him. The property of the petitioner was freezed by the Investigating Officer in connection with the said crime.

¶17

Consequent to acquittal of the petitioner, in law, the petitioner is entitled for return of the immovable property freezed by the Investigating Officer. As a matter of fact, the trial Court, by its order, has directed that the seized muddemal articles be disposed of, according to the usual procedure, after the appeal period is over. Insofar as the seized cash amount is concerned, the same has been confiscated to State and to be credited to the State. The cash amount has been ordered to be confiscated as none of the accused claimed the same as belonging to them. Notably, the Public Prosecutor did not recommend filing of appeal against acquittal of the petitioner/accused No.3 in particular. The appeal period has expired long back.

¶18

Since September, 2010, we have been showing indulgence to the respondent-State to consider whether the State would like to question the correctness of the order of acquittal in favour of the

¶19

3 wp172810

¶20

petitioner and other accused. We have been informed across the Bar, from time to time, that steps are being taken, and the matter is being processed, and the proposal is under consideration. We cannot keep on waiting indefinitely. As aforesaid, the appeal period has expired long back, as the order of acquittal is dated 22nd May, 2009.

¶21

For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to dispose of this petition, with a peremptory order on the following terms:-

¶22

If the respondent-State fails to appeal against acquittal and/or order of return of property within a period of four weeks from today, and fails to move the Court for appropriate interim relief within 6 weeks from today, the Competent Authority shall forthwith release the immovable property, being Flat No. 303 in Kargil Apartments, Building No. 1, Taluka Vasai, District Thane, to the petitioner before this Court, who was accused No.3 in the disposed of criminal case. However, if the respondent-State succeeds in getting interim order within the specified time of 6 weeks from today, the

¶23

4 wp172810

¶24

disputed property will have to abide by such directions as may be passed in the said proceedings.

¶25

Petition is disposed of on the above terms and subject to such order as may be passed in the said proceedings.

¶26

A.P. BHANGALE, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

Halima Suleman Hakam v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Halima Suleman Hakam v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Dadasaheb Balaram Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pramod Laxman Talbhandare Vs the Commissioner of Police Solapur and Anr.

Avinash Madan Aade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sampatti Mahadeo Doiphode Vs the Incharge Vishrambaug Police Stn, Sangli Andors

Gangadhar Krishna Pukale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sampatti Mahadeo Doiphode Vs the Incharge Vishrambaug Police Stn, Sangli Andors