SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(All) 818

DINESH KUMAR SINGH I
JAI BHAGWAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Anoop Kumar Mishra, Mahendra Ram Maurya and K.K. Pandey for the Appellants; A.G.A. for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.—All the above three appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Muzaffarnagar passed in Misc. Case NO. 04 of 2016 (State v. Jai Bhagwan and three others) which is a reference made to the Court below under Section 16 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Gangsters Act’) whereby the order of the District Magistrate Muzaffarnagar attaching the properties of appellants under Section 14 of the Gangster Act vide order dated 20.3.2015 as well as the order dated 18.11.2016 dismissing the objection moved by the appellants, have been upheld.

2. The facts, in brief of this case, are as follows :

3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar had passed an order under Section 14 (1) of the Gangster Act attaching the properties of the appellants on the basis of report of Incharge, P.S. Ram Raj, District Muzaffarnagar dated 17.3.2015 which was submitted through S.S.P., Muzaffarnagar. Details of property are as und























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top