# Mohd. Ashraf Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 985
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-09-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 932 of 2016
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-ashraf-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-44387
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - U.P. Gangster & AntiSocial Activities Prevention Act, 1986 -
Section 3(1), 14(1), 16(1)- Release of
Vehicle - It is not desirable in the matter
of motor vehicle, that the same be kept at
the police station for a long time which
results in the vehicle becoming junk,
therefore, the vehicle-in-question should
be released in favour of the registered
owner on such terms and conditions as
the Court below may deem fit and proper.
(Para 12)

In the instant case no criminal case has been
ever instituted against the revisionist nor has it
come on record that the alleged vehicle has
been used in the crime in question alleged to
have been committed by the brother of the
revisionist.

Rejection of release application set aside and
matter is remitted.

Revision disposed off. (E-4)

Precedent followed: -

## Text

9 All. Mohd. Ashraf Vs. State of U.P.
985
(2020)09ILR A985
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 932 of 2016

Mohd. Ashraf ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Lav Srivastava, Sri V.P. Srivastava, Sri
Ashutosh Mishra.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - U.P. Gangster & AntiSocial Activities Prevention Act, 1986 -
Section 3(1), 14(1), 16(1)- Release of
Vehicle - It is not desirable in the matter
of motor vehicle, that the same be kept at
the police station for a long time which
results in the vehicle becoming junk,
therefore, the vehicle-in-question should
be released in favour of the registered
owner on such terms and conditions as
the Court below may deem fit and proper.
(Para 12)

In the instant case no criminal case has been
ever instituted against the revisionist nor has it
come on record that the alleged vehicle has
been used in the crime in question alleged to
have been committed by the brother of the
revisionist.

Rejection of release application set aside and
matter is remitted.

Revision disposed off. (E-4)

Precedent followed: -

1. Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai Vs St. of Guj.,
2003 (46) A.C.C. 223 (Para 13)
Present criminal revision has been filed for
quashing order dated 15.03.2016, passed
by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act),
Bhadohi-Gyanpur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned
Senior counsel assisted by Sri Lav
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision under
Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing
the
order
dated
15.3.2016
(wrongly mentioned in the impugned order
dated as 15.3.2015) passed by learned
Special Judge (Gangster Act), BhadohiGyanpur in Reference Case No.3 of 2015,
whereby the release application filed by the
revisionist has been rejected.

3. It is contended by learned counsel
for the revisionist that vehicle i.e. Toyota
Fortuner bearing registration No.U.P. 70
CU 5707 belongs to the revisionist and it
has no concern with his brother Muzaffar.
The aforesaid vehicle was financed by the
Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank,
Branch Bamrauli. It is next contended that
brother of the revisionist namely Muzaffar
is being prosecuted under Section 3(1) of
U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities
Prevention Act, 1986 for which first
information report bearing case crime
no.90 of 2014 was lodged at Police Station
Aurai,
District
Sant
Ravidas
Nagar,
Bhadohi. It is further submitted that in case
crime no.90 of 2014 a report was submitted
by the Officer Incharge of Police Station
Mahila Thana, under Section 14(1) of U.P.
Gangster
&
Anti
Social
Activities
Prevention Act for attachment of property
of brother of the revisionist Muzaffar,
thereafter,
on
aforesaid
report
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Superintendent of Police Sant Ravidas
Nagar, Bhadohi referred the matter to
District Magistrate for attachment of
property of Muzaffar under Section 14(1)
of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities
Prevention Act. On the basis of aforesaid
recommendation under Section 14(1) of
U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities
Prevention Act for attachment of property
of the revisionist's brother Muzaffar,
Superintendent of of Police, Sant Ravidas
Nagar, Bhadohi referred the matter to the
District Magistrate for attachment of the
property of Muzaffar under Section 14(1)
of the U.P. Gangster & Anti Social
Activities Prevention Act the properties of
Muzaffar were attached including one
Fortuner bearing registration no.U.P.70 CU
5707, engine no.1KDU480871 and chechis
no.MBJ11JV510535506. An application
under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangster &
Anti Social Activities Prevention Act
before District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas
Nagar, Bhadohi for release of vehicle in
question was moved by the revisionist on
4.4.2015, but the District Magistrate, Sant
Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi refused to release
the vehicle of the revisionist and under the
provisions of Section 16(1) of U.P.
Gangster
&
Anti
Social
Activities
Prevention Act referred the matter to
Special Judge (Gangster Act), Bhadohi.
Revisionist contested the case before
Special Judge (Gangster Act), Bhadohi in
Reference Case No.3 of 2013 and it was
specifically argued that vehicle bearing
registration no.U.P.70 CU 5707 exclusively
belongs to him and Muzaffar has no
concern with the same therefore the same
should be released in his favour relevant
documents
i.e.
registration
certificate,
hypothecation certificate, issued by the
Branch Manager, Baroda Uttar Pradesh
Gramin Bank, Branch Bamrauli were there,
but the concerned Court below has rejected
the said application of the revisionist and
refused to release the vehicle-in-question in
favour of the revisionist. It is, thus
contended that the order impugned passed
by the concerned Court below refusing to
release the vehicle-in-question is illegal and
deserves to be set aside.

4. Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A for
the State-respondent has vehemently opposed
the prayer for release of vehicle in favour of the
revisionist and submitted that the revisionist
failed to bring on record any legal or valid paper
such as Khasara, Khatauni and annual earnings
with regard to agricultural field i.e. 50 Bigha of
land and the revisionist also did not produce
any agricultural papers to prove ownership of it
by his father as well as other sources the
revisionist had also failed to produce any papers
with regard to actual earnings from agricultural
land from which earnings such a heavy cost
vehicle has been purchased by the revisionist or
his brother Muzaffar and no such papers has
been produced. Thus, it is submitted that the
order impugned passed by the concerned Court
below is just, legal and suffers from no
illegality.

5. I have heard the submissions as
advanced by the counsel for the respective
parties
and
perused
the
documents
available on record.

6. The revisionist has contested the
case that the revisionist is a registered
owner
of
Toyota
Fortuner
bearing
registration no. U.P.70 CU 5707, which
vehicle was wrongly attached treating the
same as the property belonging to his
brother Muazffar who is said to involve in
some criminal cases of which revisionist
has no concern, however application (33
Ga) was filed before the concerned Court
below to release the vehicle-in-question,
but the same has been rejected.
9 All. Mohd. Ashraf Vs. State of U.P.
987

7. While rejecting the application (33
Ga) filed by the order dated 15.3.2015 has
made following order observations which
reads as under:-

pwWfd izkFkhZ ds }kjk vius dFku ds leFkZu
esa dksbZ Hkh lk{; ugha fn;k x;k gS ftlls ;g lkfcr
gks fd izkFkhZ us oS/k Jksrksa dh vk; ls lEifRr vftZr
dh gS izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr eqtQ~Qj dk lxk HkkbZ gS vkSj
izkFkhZ ds }kjk ;g Hkh lkfcr ugha fd;k tk ldk gS fd
og vfHk;qDr eqtQ~Qj ls fdl izdkj ls vyx jgrk
gS] dgkW ij jgrk gS fdl edku esa jgrk gS ,oa izkFkhZ
,oa mlds HkkbZ ds e/; cVokjk dc gqvkA vr% izkFkhZ
dk ;g dguk fd og Lo;a vk; djrk gS ,oa mlds
HkkbZ eqtQ~Qj ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gSA ;g Hkh rF;
izkFkhZ }kjk lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkhZ dk
vkosnu okgu fueqZDr 33x [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA

vkns'k

izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 161⁄411⁄2
;w0ih0 fxjksg cUn ,oa lekt fojks/kh fØ;k dyki
fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1986 [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA 'ks"k
vkosndx.k dh lquokbZ ds fy, i=koyh fnukad
05&04&2016 dks is'k gksA

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the revisionist is living
separately and he has no concern with his
brother Muzaffar, reference in this regard
has been made to annexure-SA-1 to the
supplementary affidavit dated 23.11.2016,
which is copy of ration card of the
revisionist.
Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist has further submitted that the
revisionist is an income tax payee as is
authenticated by annexure-SA-2, SA-3 &
SA-4 to the supplementary affidavit dated
23.11.2016, which is the copy of the Indian
Income Tax Return Verification Form for
financial years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16.
It is further submitted that the revisionist is
the owner of a truck bearing registration
no.U.P.73-A - 1610 which is sold to one
Shanti Devi w/o Raj Narayan, a copy of
registration certificate in the name of
revisionist and receipt of transfer dated
21.1.2013 and the transfer application duly
filed and signed by the revisionist dated
20.2.2013 have been annexed as annexureSA-5, SA-6 and SA-7 to the supplementary
affidavit
dated
23.11.2016.
Learned
counsel for the revisionist submits that the
vehicle-in-question bearing U.P. 70 CU
5707 engine no.1KDU480871, Chesis
No.MBJ11JV510535506
has
been
purchased by the revisionist after taking
financial aid from Baroda Uttar Pradesh
Gramin Bank, Branch Bamrauli after
furnishing proper sureties.

9. So far as the observation made by
concerned Court below that the revisionist
had also failed to produce any papers with
regard to actual earnings from agricultural
land it is submitted by the revisionist that
late Imtiyaj Uddin S/0 Sirajuddin was the
grand father of revisionist, he had landed
property in the village Chafari Uparhar,
Pargana
Nawabganj.
Tehsil
Soraon,
District
Allahabad.
Revisionist's
grandfather Imtiyaj Uddin was the owner in
possession of various plots of Khata no.50,
73, 76 and 77. Total area of the plots of
Khata no.73 is 7 bighas 18 biswa and that
plot no.77 is 10 bighas 18 biswa. Total area
of the plots of Khata no.76 is 22 bighas 7
biswa, to substantiate the aforesaid fact
photo copy of khatauni 1421-1426 fasli of
khata no.50, khatauni 1388-1393 fasli of
khata no.76 and khatauni 1388-1393 fasli
of khata no.73 and 77 is filed herewith this
revision and marked as annexure-RA-1,
RA-2 and RA-3 respectively to this
rejoinder affidavit. Thus, the grandfather of
the revisionist had been the owner in
possession of more than 50 bighas of land
which ultimately came to revisionist and
his brothers after the death of grandfather
and father of the revisionist, the father of
the revisionist Mukhtar died in the year
2015 leaving behind the revisionist and his
brothers as his legal representatives.
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. It is further submitted no criminal
cases are there to the credit of the
revisionist, and it is brother of the
revisionist namely Muzaffar against whom
eight cases were shown, which have been
detailed in the counter affidavit filed by the
State-respondent and the revisionist has no
concern with the said cases lodged against
his brother, therefore, it is submitted that
the revisionist cannot be penalized for
alleged
wrong
doing/criminal
cases
registered against his brother Muzaffar.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist
has drawn the attention of this Court
towards Section 451 Cr.P.C. which reads as
under:-

"451. Order for custody and
disposal of property pending trial in certain
cases. When any property is produced before
any Criminal Court during any inquiry or
trial, the Court may make such order as it
thinks fit for the proper custody of such
property pending the conclusion of the inquiry
or trial, and, if the property is subject to
speedy and natural decay, or if it is otherwise
expedient so to do, the Court may, after
recording such evidence as it thinks necessary,
order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this
section," property" includes-

(a) property of any kind or
document which is produced before the
Court or which is in its custody,

(b) any property regarding which
an offence appears to have been committed
or which appears to have been used for the
commission of any offence."

12. It is thus, submitted that
provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C. clearly
provides that when any property is
produced before any Criminal Court during
any inquiry or trial, the Court may make
such order as it thinks fit for the proper
custody of such property pending the
conclusion of the inquiry or trial, and, if the
property is subject to speedy and natural
decay, or if it is otherwise expedient so to
do, the Court may, after recording such
evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to
be sold or otherwise disposed of. In the
instant case no criminal case has been ever
instituted against the revisionist nor it has
come on record the alleged vehicle has
been used in the crime in question alleged
to have been committed by the brother of
the revisionist. Therefore, it is submitted
that seizure of Toyota Fortuner of the
revisionist, is bad and unjustified.

13. Learned counsel further contends
that if the vehicle is kept in police station, the
same would result in the vehicle becoming
junk. Learned counsel for the applicant has
relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
in the matter of Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai
Vs. State of Gujarat 2003 (46) A.C.C. 223 in
support of his contention, in which it has been
held that it is not desirable in the matter of
motor vehicle, the vehicle be kept at the police
station for a long time which result in the
vehicle becoming junk, therefore, the vehiclein-question should be released in favour of the
registered owner on such terms and conditions
as the court below may deem fit and proper.

14. Accordingly, the order dated
15.3.2016 (wrongly mentioned in the impugned
order dated as 15.3.2015) passed by learned
Special Judge (Gangster Act), BhadohiGyanpur in Reference Case No.3 of 2015,
whereby the release application filed by the
revisionist has been rejected is set aside and the
matter is remitted to the concerned Magistrate
to consider and decide the matter in accordance
with law preferably within a period of two
months from the date of production of certified
copy
of
this
order
before
it.
9 All. Gopal Rai Vs. State of U.P.
989

15. With the aforesaid directions, this
revision is finally disposed off.
----------
(2020)09ILR A989
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1620 of 1995

Gopal Pal ...Revisionist (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Tapan Ghosh, Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Sri
Atul Sharma, Sri K.S. Singh, Sri Prakash
Chandra Srivastava, Sri Gaurav Singh, Sri
Kripa Shanker Singh, Sri Lakshman Tripathi,
Sri Mukesh Kumar, Sri R.N. Sharma.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Prevention of Food and
Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 2(ia), 7/16,
10(7), 11(1)(b), 13(2) - Compliance of
Section 10(7) - The evidence of the Food
Inspector shall be analyzed on the basis of
merit and on his testimony the case can be
held proved. The duty of the Food Inspector is
held
confined
to
only
calling
independent
witnesses but the said inspector cannot compel
any witness to appear and that if the evidence of
the Food Inspector is found to be believable, the
accused could be held guilty. (Para 9)

B. Jurisdiction of C.M.O. - It has been argued
that CMO did not have any authority to grant
sanction for prosecution and the Court held that
new Notification No. 6000 dated 20.1.1997, had
authorized all Chief Medical Officers to act as
Local Health Authority for the whole District,
and, therefore, the C.M.O., Mirzapur had full
jurisdiction to grant sanction to prosecute the
accused-revisionist. (Para 8)
C. Compliance of Section 13(2) - If the
registry was sent and the same did not return, it
would be deemed that the same was served
upon the accused. The filing of receipt of
registry from the side of prosecution
would be an admissible piece of evidence
u/s 114 of the Evidence Act. (Para 11, 14)

Registered notice was sent to the accused on his
given address which provided him sufficient
opportunity, within the prescribed time of 10 days,
to move for obtaining the second sample, for
getting the same analyzed from the Director of
Central Food Lab. Furthermore, when he appeared
before the Trial Court, he had a right to move an
application for getting the second sample tested, by
sending it to the Central Food Lab but he did not
avail that opportunity and, therefore, he cannot take
this plea at this late stage and no benefit can be
allowed to him. (Para 16)

D. Strict adherence to the provision of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules
framed there-under is essential for safeguarding
the interest of consumers of articles of food.
Stringent laws will have no meaning if offenders could
get away with mere fine. (Para 17)

Revision is partly allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. St. of Raj. Vs Jagdish Prasad, 2009 Law Suit
(SC) 694 (Para 17, 20)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Ram Labhaya Vs Municipal Corporation of
Delhi & ors., AIR 1974 SC 789 (Para 9)

2. Nagar Swastha Adhikari, Nagar Maha Palika
Vs Chhunni Lal, 1991 Supp. ACC 403 (Para 16)

3. Jugul Kishore Vs St. of U.P. [2019 (106) ACC
752] (Para 13)

Present
revision
has
been
preferred
against
judgment
and
order
dated
06.12.1995, passed by Vth Additional
Sessions Judge, Mirzapur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.)