Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. AFZAL versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VARANASI DISTRICT VARANASI ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Afzal v. The District Magistrate, Varanasi District Varanasi Ors. - WRIT - C No. 7758 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3157 (10 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil  Misc. W.P. No.  7758 of 2006

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

The petitioner has challenged the validity of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The validity of the Act has already been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court and no good ground has been shown too us to take a different view.

The petitioner has next contended that her husband was also one of the accused in the criminal case under the aforesaid Act and, because her husband has died, therefore, the proceedings under the Act must lapse. The argument is misconceived. The petitioner was also a co-accused and death of only one co-accused does not abate the criminal proceedings so far as other accused are concerned.

The petitioner has next challenged the attachment of her properties under the provisions of section 14 of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions of this Court.

1.Sujan Singh Versus State of U.P., 1992 U.P. Criminal Rulings 382, and

2.Smt. Kahkashan Parveen and another Versus State of U.P., 1999 U.P. Criminal Rulings 810.

Having examined these two decisions, we are of the opinion that this would not be a proper stage to entertain this writ petition in view of the fact that an alternative remedy exists under section 15 of the Act, wherein, it is open to the petitioner to establish before the District Magistrate that the properties were not acquired out of the money earned from the activities contemplated under the Act.  

Further more, this question whether the property was or was not acquired out of such money would be a question of fact, which can not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy.

Dated : February 10, 2006

AM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.