Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
Chandra Bhushan Dubey – Appellant
Versus
State through C.B.I, S.P.E, Ranchi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of procedural history and context. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding property attachment. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis of property attachment laws. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal rationale for quashing the attachment order. (Para 14) |
| 5. final judgment and order. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Roshan, J.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd December 2002, passed by the Judicial Commissioner Ranchi in Petition No. 210 of 1996 arising out of RC 35(A)/ 96- Pat titled State of Bihar through CBI versus Chandra Bhushan Dubey and others; whereby the Ld. Trial Court had made the interim attachment as absolute vide the impugned order by holding as under:
“19. From the record it transpires that the CBI has after investigation found that Schedule-II property had been acquired out of the money of the Animal Husbandry Department unlawfully misappropriated by the Opposite Party No.1 Dr. Chandra Bhjushan Dubey acting as Piggery Development Officer, and Animal Husbandry Department, Ranchi and since at that Dr. Chandra Bhushan Dubey was a public servant, the Annexure-Il properties should be finally attached under the provisions of Sections 4 a
The presumption of innocence remains until conviction; hence, attachment of property ceases upon the death of the accused without conviction, allowing for property release under the Criminal Law Ordi....
The attachment of assets of persons other than the accused is permissible under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, if the applicant can demonstrate that the source of the money or assets acq....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an attachment order under the Criminal Law(Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, will be in force for a period of one year unless extended by the Distri....
Properties acquired prior to the commission of a predicate offence cannot be attached under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, as they do not constitute proceeds of crime.
Money Laundering – Provisional Attachment Order – Formation of opinion must bear a proximate and live nexus to purpose of protecting interest of Government revenue.
A proclaimed offender cannot challenge the attachment of property without first contesting the underlying proclamation order, as the property is at the State's disposal if the offender fails to appea....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
