RASHIDA BANO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.2.2010 passed by Special Judge , Gangster Act, Varanasi and the order dated 6.8.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi.

(2.) The learned Special Judge, Gangster Act, Varanasi vide order dated 10.2.2010 rejected her application on the ground that the applicant has failed to produce any document to show from what source of income the said house was purchased in the year 1999 and from what source of income the petitioner and her husband have raised further constructions in the house.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid orders passed by District Magistrate and Special Judge, Varanasi by contending that the property that has been attached was not acquired by the husband of the applicant/petitioner as a Gangster. The said house was purchased by the applicant by their joint income as both of them are in the business of glass for last more than 15 years. They have raised the house further by obtaining a loan of Rs. 8,00,000/- from Kashi Gramin Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in order to prove these averments the petitioner/applicant had filed before the Courts below the income tax returns of herself and her husband. She had also filed the original copy of notice of Kashi Gramin Bank dated 27.11.2009 issued to applicant and her husband with regard to loan. But learned District Magistrate and learned Special Judge without any reason, presumed that the property was acquired by the husband of petitioner by commission of crime.