Plea to release seized property rejected
THE JUDGE of the special gangster court CL Verma of Kanpur City rejected the plea for release of seized residential complex of Madhu Agarwal, who is facing charges of human trafficking.india Updated: Apr 20, 2006 00:02 IST
THE JUDGE of the special gangster court CL Verma of Kanpur City rejected the plea for release of seized residential complex of Madhu Agarwal, who is facing charges of human trafficking.
The Sarojini Nagar, Fajalganj, residence of Agarwal was seized under the Gangster Act by the DM following claims by the investigating agency that the accused had purchased the house with money earned through illegal means.
Agarwal, along with eight men and women, was nabbed by then CO Babupurwa Shailesh Kumar Yadav and SO, Kidwai Nagar RP Singh on November 28, 2003.
Later, a petition was filed in the court demanding release of the said complex.
The petition stated that the accused and her sister jointly bought the complex.
The petition further said that one unmarried woman, who was a teacher and had a monthy income of Rs 10,000, had adopted the accused’s sister.
The petition pleaded that Agarwal’s sister had sold her Kidwai Nagar house for Rs 3.5 lakh. The money was used to purchase the Sarojini Nagar residence. The rest of the money had come from the earnings of a beauty parlor.
Therefore, the petition claimed that charges of earning through illegal resources and purchase of the residence with the same money were false.
However, the court observed that petitioner could not prove the legal source of earning. Besides, the petitioner had issued different statements to the district magistrate and the court. At the same time the monthly income had been certified as Rs 2,000. The court said the payment of Rs 2.5 lakh for the purchase of residence has been proved but the petitioner had not proved the legal source for the rest of the amount.
Moreover, no application from her sister in support of her statement has been submitted to the court.
The court observed that as the petitioner was not able to prove that the property was legally obtained so the petition for release of the seized resident was rejected.