MOHAMMAD ZARIF Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order also governs the disposal of Criminal Revision Nos. 38/02 to 41/02 and Cri. Rev. Nos. 63/02 to 64/02.

(2.) All the aforesaid Criminal revisions have been filed by the applicant against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the objection filed under Section 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about attachment of the property owned by Non-applicant No. 2 Mohd. Shakir. The objectors have submitted that as it was a joint property in Criminal Revision No. 41/01, the applicant Shamina Bano, wife of Mohd. Shakir has submitted before the trial Court that it was the property given to her in MEHAR. In Criminal Revision No. 63/02, submission of the applicant was that the property involved in this case was the joint property by the applicant. In all these three revisions, applicant and Mohd. Shakir, respondent No. 2 have submitted before this Court that since the properties were joint properties and in one revision it is a property of Shamina Bano given in Mehar, could not have been attached, attacking this submission, counsel for the State has submitted that in the case of joint property, only half portion of the property has ordered to be attached and auctioned, not the full property. So far as property relating to Shamina Bano given in Meher, except one document, neither Shamina Bano appeared nor the respondent No. 2 Mohd. Shakir, her husband had given the statement to this effect, even the original register was not produced and proved by the concerned Kaji.

(3.) Rest of the Criminal Revisions i.e. Cri. Rev. Nos. 38/02, 39/02, 40/02, 63/02 and 64/02 the claim is based on oral Hiba (Gift) and the applicants as well as Mohd. Shakir failed to establish required ingredients by adducing cogent and reliable evidence before the Court below. This has been considered in great detail by the trial Court which has been read to me by the counsel for the State as well as the applicant. Apart from this, they have not adduced any evidence for the purpose of establishing that after gift by donor and acceptance by the donee, the possession of the said property was duly given. For this purpose, they have not filed and documentary evidence either by filing and examining the witnesses of Land record or certified copy of Nagar Nigam and documents of mutation.