Back
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Ajmat Ullah Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J.
1. The challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 11th July, 2023 passed by the Assistant District Election Officer, District Office (Panchayat and Nagariya Nikay), Gonda (respondent no.3), whereby representation dated 06.06.2023 preferred by the petitioners for release of sum of Rs.6,60,200/-, which was seized during the Three-tier Panchayat General Election, 2021 from Vehicle No. UP-32-FP-4674 (Eco Sport Ford) belonging to the petitioners on 01.04.2021, has been rejected.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that petitioners are the real brothers. Petitioner No.1-Ajmat Ullah Ansari, who is the sub-agent of Instant Global Money Transfer Private Limited, bearing license No. F.E.C.G.F.M.C.088/2005 dated 30.09.2005 M.T.S.S. License No. E.C.C.O. E.P.D./995/22624/9899 dated 30.03.1999, deals with the transfer of money. The said license was issued on 30.04.2005 and continued till 31.05.2018 and the same was renewed from time to time under the condition stipulated by the Reserve bank of India. On 10.10.2018, the name of the company was changed and renewed upto 31.06.2021 and thereafter it has
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with statutory procedures, particularly in the context of the seizure of property under Section 102 of the Criminal ....
The powers of the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution of India and the SOP for seizure and release of cash issued by the Election Commission of India were upheld, and the court ....
Seizure of cash without following prescribed procedures is illegal, and transfer to the Income Tax Department without an FIR is unauthorized.
The main legal point established is that cash is excluded from the definition of 'goods' under the CGST Act and cannot be seized under Section 67 as such. The court emphasized the need for the seizur....
Term ‘forthwith’ only requires that the act should be performed with reasonable speed and any delay in the matter should be satisfactorily explained.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the legality of freezing bank accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and the applicability of this provision in the context of the case.
Interim custody of seized property under S. 503 BNSS should be granted expeditiously when there is no rival claim, using bonds and photographic records to secure evidentiary value rather than keeping....
Seizure of cash under CGST Section 67(2) invalid absent recorded 'reason to believe' of secretion and relevance to proceedings; automatic return mandated under Section 67(7) if no notice within six m....
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
