# Ashraf Ali v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1084 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-12 - **Bench:** Prabhat Chandra Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashraf-ali-v-state-of-u-p-anr-44135 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the order dated 31.03.2016 classifying the petitioners' account as NPA and the order dated 25.07.2016 rejecting the petitioners' objections filed under Section 13(3A) of the Act. It is contended by the petitioners that their account has been wrongly classified as NPA in violation of RBI guidelines. It is further submitted that on the relevant date sufficient stock was available as security and therefore the classification as NPA is illegal. It is also urged that the second notice under Section 13(2) is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank opposed the petition and submitted that no measure under Section 13(4) of the Act has yet been taken and there ## Text 1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 1084 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. Application U/s 482 No.- 24451 Of 2016 Ashraf Ali ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a direction to the court below to consider and dispose of the bail application of the applicant on the same day in Case No.611/IX/2015 (State Vs. Santosh Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.136 of 2013 under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Chhata. As per the FIR, on 17.10.2013 the Supply Inspector intercepted a vehicle carrying approximately 1600 litres of kerosene oil. The driver disclosed that the kerosene oil was procured from the applicant Ashraf Ali and coaccused Santosh Kumar, who are wholesale dealers. It was alleged that they were selling kerosene oil in the black market. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and others under Section 3/7 E.C. Act. Cognizance was taken on 20.04.2015. The Court observed that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence, no good ground is made out to interfere in the matter or to issue any direction for disposal of the bail application on the same day. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: (Delivered by Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Shri Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 8 All. Ashraf Ali Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 1085 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for a direction to the Court below to consider and dispose of the bail application of the applicant on the same day in Case No. 611/IX/2015 (State Vs. Santosh Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2013, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Chhata. 3. As per F.I.R. version, on 17.10.2013 at about 5.30 P.M., the Supply Inspector, Chhata along with other officials of the office of the District Supply Officer, Mathura accompanied with the police force intercepted the vehicle bearing registration No. UP85Z 9758 at the outskirts of village Sahar on Goverdhan Chhata Road and enquired about 8 drums in which approximately 1600 litres kerosene oil were filled up and transported. The driver of the vehicle on enquiry disclosed his name as Pappu and informed that he has procured it from Santosh Kumar and Ashraf Ali of village Sahar, who were whole-sale dealers of kerosene oil, situated at Mathura. He has also informed that he has procured kerosene oil from Santosh and Ashraf Ali of the quantity of 950 litres and 900 litres from M/s Brij Oil Company, Mathura respectively. He and Santosh Kumar, the seller, on enquiry could not give satisfactory reply and eloped from the scene. So it is clear that Santosh Kumar and Ashraf Ali are involved in selling kerosene oil of the quantity of 250 litres on higher price in the black-market. The F.I.R. was lodged under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, 1955 and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted in Crime No. 136 of 2013, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, 1955, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura against the accused persons Santosh Kumar, Ashraf Ali and driver Pappu. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the vehicle and kerosene oil have been released under Section 6A E.C. Act, 1955 by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Law and Order), Mathura. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant and has drawn the attention of the Court towards several order sheets of pending trial case mainly of the date 18.5.2016, where bailable warrants of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- have been issued against the accused persons fixing 16.7.2016 as a date of appearance. Learned A.G.A. has also pointed out that the trial has commenced. 6. The applicant is in the knowledge of the criminal case pending against him but instead of abiding by the process issued by the lower Court for his appearance, he is evading it. Albeit, cognizance has been taken on 20.4.2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chhata. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. The application is liable to be dismissed. 8. The application is dismissed. --------- 1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 1086 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHA, J. Writ C No.- 36097 Of 2016 M/S Aroma Chemicals & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Punjab National bank ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Amit Khanna Counsel for the Respondent: Sudha Pandey This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the notice dated 30.05.2016 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the order dated 31.03.2016 classifying the petitioners' account as NPA and the order dated 25.07.2016 rejecting the petitioners' objections filed under Section 13(3A) of the Act. It is contended by the petitioners that their account has been wrongly classified as NPA in violation of RBI guidelines. It is further submitted that on the relevant date sufficient stock was available as security and therefore the classification as NPA is illegal. It is also urged that the second notice under Section 13(2) is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank opposed the petition and submitted that no measure under Section 13(4) of the Act has yet been taken and therefore the writ petition is premature. It is further submitted that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act after any measure under Section 13(4) is taken. The Court found that the Bank had given a detailed and speaking reply dated 25.07.2016 to the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 13(3A). The reply disclosed that despite repeated requests and reminders, the petitioners did not allow the Bank officials to verify the stock. When the Bank officials were finally allowed access on 14.06.2016, no stock was found in the premises. The petitioners have also admitted in the supplementary affidavit that as on 05.08.2016 there is no stock available in the factory premises. The Court held that in view of the huge outstanding liability of Rs.23,33,16,216.01/- and the complete absence of stock/security, the objections raised by the petitioners are unsustainable both in law and in equity. The apprehension of the Bank that the stock has been surreptitiously removed appears to be well founded.