Telangana High Court Faults Co-op Societies for Attaching Relatives' Properties Without Notice
Justice T. Madhavi Devi delivered the order while dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the attachment of the properties under Section 73 of the TCS Act by the societies.
Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court faulted district cooperative societies for directly attaching properties pertaining to the relatives or legal heirs of the persons responsible for causing loss to the respective primary agricultural societies. The court made it clear that before attaching properties under Section 73 of the TCS Act, the authorities must issue showcause notices to the relatives or legal heirs to inquire as to the nature of the property held by them and, after examining the replies, take a decision.
Justice T. Madhavi Devi delivered the order while dealing with a batch of petitions challenging the attachment of the properties under Section 73 of the TCS Act by the societies. Some petitioners claimed that the attached properties were acquired through “sthri dhan’ or were self-acquired through the businesses. Interestingly, officials found that there were no properties on the names of the persons who were charged for misappropriation of funds. Hence, the authorities attached the properties belonging to wives in some cases and legal heirs in some cases, for recovery of the money.
The court, without going into the merits of the cases, made it clear that the authorities had no jurisdiction to attach the third party properties without proper inquiry. The judge said that the authorities concerned had the liberty to proceed against them in accordance with law after giving ample and reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Telangana High Court Acquits Govt Servant in 25-Year-Old Corruption Case
Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court acquitted a government servant from a corruption case registered against him 25 years ago, stating that mere recovery of tainted money in corruption cases did not establish guilt without corroborative evidence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and conscious acceptance.
The court recalled the Supreme Court`s observations that in offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification was essential. The presumption under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act also arises only after demand and acceptance are proved.
An ACB special court in 2007 had sentenced R. Mahender to one year imprisonment and `2,000 fine on charges of taking a `4,000 bribe on January 3, 2000, from a civil contractor to release money for the construction of primary school building in Thattupally of Korvi mandal in Warangal district.
Mahender approached the High Court in 2007, and the case was is pending since then. Two days ago the High Court set aside the Judgment of the special court and acquitted Mahender. The record demonstrated that the money received by Mahender was paid towards supervisory charges connected with the ongoing construction of a school building.
