Advertisement
X

Properties Acquired By Gangster In Wife's Name Can Be Attached Under Gangsters Act: Allahabad HC

The court said this while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by Meena Devi, the wife of alleged gangster Rajendra Yadav of Azamgarh, challenging a May 4, 2023 order of a special judge, Gangsters Act, upholding a property attachment order issued by the district magistrate.

The Allahabad High Court on Monday said properties acquired by a gangster in the name of his wife can be attached under the Gangsters Act.

The court said this while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by Meena Devi, the wife of alleged gangster Rajendra Yadav of Azamgarh, challenging a May 4, 2023 order of a special judge, Gangsters Act, upholding a property attachment order issued by the district magistrate.

Dismissing Meena Devi's plea, Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava said, "This court is of the view that the properties which were attached were acquired by gangster Rajendra Yadav, husband of the appellant, in the name of his wife by way of commission of offence triable under the Gangsters Act."

"It also appears that relevant materials were supplied to the district magistrate, Azamgarh to have reason to believe that the properties in question were acquired by gangster Rajendra Yadav, the husband of the present appellant, as a result of commission of any offence triable under this Act and the burden upon the claimant to prove that the properties were not acquired... as a result of commission of any offence under the Act has not been discharged sufficiently," he said.

From the perusal of the record, the court said, it appears that the DM had relevant materials in support of the police report and that the appellant did not have enough income to acquire the said properties.

During the hearing, the counsel for Meena Devi submitted that the appellant is neither a gangster nor has she earned the aforesaid properties on account of her involvement in any anti-social activities.

The Azamgarh DM did not consider the appellant's plea. He arbitrarily confirmed his order of attachment while rejecting her representation and holding that the property was acquired through money earned illegally by her husband and referred the case to the special judge, the counsel said.

Show comments
US