Administrative judgment of guanxian People's Court.

(1999) Guan Hang Chu ZiNo. 16 1

Plaintiff: Yao Huaping, male, born in 1962, Han nationality, farmer, living in Yao Xing Village, Qingshui Town, guanxian.

Authorized Agent: Ge Runmin, legal worker of Dongchangfu District Central Office in Liaocheng City.

Authorized Agent: Xing Tianhua, legal worker of Dongchangfu District Central Law Firm in Liaocheng City.

Defendant: Qingshui Town People's Government of guanxian.

Legal Representative: Yue Qixiang, mayor.

Authorized Agent: Song Shufeng, lawyer of Guangzhou Law Firm.

Authorized Agent: Yin Rukui, director of the Judicial Office of the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian.

Plaintiff Yao Huaping v. Defendant guanxian Qingshui Town People's Government's agricultural administrative law enforcement case, and Plaintiff Yao Huaping brought a lawsuit to our court. After the court accepted the case, a collegiate bench was formed according to law and the case was heard in public. Plaintiff Yao Huaping, agents Ge Runmin and Xing Tianhua, defendants Song Shufeng and Yin Rukui attended the proceedings. Now the trial of this case is over.

Yao Huaping, the plaintiff, claimed that 1998, on the first day of the fifth lunar month, the team led by Feng Shouyi, the general branch secretary of the people's government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, led by Du and other members of the Yao Xing village committee, had no adults in the plaintiff's home, and the defendant did not show any certificates and procedures, nor did he identify himself, so he forcibly drove away the plaintiff's tractor for one month, and seized the plaintiff's tractor, 10,000 yuan in cash and all the toolbox.

The defendant argued that the defendant did not deny the fact that Yao Huaping's tractor was detained, but the plaintiff proposed that the indirect loss of the tractor should not be compensated, and the State Compensation Law stipulated that only the direct loss should be compensated. When the plaintiff's tractor was seized, Feng Shouyi, Li, Du and Du Tongxing made an on-site inventory. There are wrenches and pliers in the tractor toolbox, but there is no cash. The plaintiff's claim cannot be supported.

During the trial, the defendant submitted evidence to the court: (1), (2), (3) and (4) proving that there was no cash in the plaintiff's tractor toolbox; No.5 proves that the plaintiff's tractor is in Dujia; (6) The certificate number of the plaintiff's tractor being detained. The plaintiff objected to the evidence provided by the defendant: the plaintiff's agent asked the defendant for a tractor. At the same time, submit the following evidence to the court: (1)(2)(3) It proves that the defendant detained the plaintiff's tractor.

After cross-examination and debate in court, it was found that the plaintiff Yao Huaping refused to pay for agriculture on the first day of the fifth lunar month 1998, and the staff of Qingshui Town People's Government in guanxian seized the plaintiff's tractor to Dujia. Later, the defendant repeatedly notified the plaintiff to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng and drove the tractor away. During the trial, the agent of the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, said that the plaintiff could drive the tractor away, and there was no legal basis for his administrative action of detaining the plaintiff Yao Huaping's tractor. The evidence provided by Qingshui Town People's Government of guanxian can prove the above facts.

We believe that after the Lunar New Year 1 May 19981,the defendant, the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, forcibly detained Yao Huaping's tractor to Du School on the grounds that he refused to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng. There is no legal basis for his administrative actions, and this court will not support them. The plaintiff claimed that there was 1 10,000 yuan in cash in his toolbox. If there is no evidence, it will not be accepted. According to the provisions of Item 3 and Item 4 of Paragraph 2 of Article 54 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

The administrative compulsory act of detaining the plaintiff Yao Huaping's tractor by the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian was revoked.

The notice shall be returned to the plaintiff's tractor within five days after this judgment comes into effect.

Reject the plaintiff's other claims.

400 yuan, the case acceptance fee, shall be borne by the defendant.

If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can submit an appeal to our court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of the other parties to appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Liaocheng City, Shandong Province.

Presiding judge: Xu Haijun.

Examiner: Xu Yiqiang

Acting judge: Zhang Qifeng.

December 22nd, 1999

Bookkeeper: Zhang Shaoze

Shandong Provincial People's Procuratorate

Application of inspection supervisor

Applicant: Yao Huaping, male, from Yao Xing Village, Qingshui Town, guanxian City, Liaocheng City.

Respondent: guanxian Public Security Bureau.

Application: Request the procuratorate to urge the guanxian Public Security Bureau to file a case to investigate Yue Qixiang's robbery, or notify or reply the applicant in writing not to file a case.

Fact reason:

On February 26, 20 10, the applicant sent a letter of accusation about Yue Qixiang's robbery to guanxian Public Security Bureau by registered mail, with the email number of XA 1650 67 19 9 37, but so far he has not replied or informed me that the case will not be filed. The contents of the complaint are as follows:

Plaintiff: Yao Huaping, male, from Yao Xing Village, Qingshui Town, guanxian City, Liaocheng City.

Defendant:

1, Yue Qixiang, currently director of guanxian Civil Affairs Bureau.

2. Feng Shouyi is from Qingshui Town, guanxian.

3. Other members of the team headed by Feng Shouyi

Charge: 1. Request guanxian Public Security Bureau to investigate the criminal responsibility of criminal gangs headed by Yue Qixiang and Feng Shouyi for robbing the plaintiff's tractors, cash and other items.

2. The defendant was ordered to compensate the defendant for all the losses caused by robbing tractors and other things.

Fact: At about 10: 30 p.m. on the first day of May after the lunar calendar 1998 (AD1June 24, 998), a small team led by defendants Yue Qixiang and Feng Shouyi gathered many people to illegally invade the defendant's home. There were no adults in the defendant's home, and he did not show any documents and procedures, and did not show his identity. Yao, the only minor in the defendant's family, forced the plaintiff to buy a new tractor for one month, and illegally took the plaintiff's tractor, cash 1 10,000 yuan and all the tools in the toolbox, which has not been given to me so far, causing great losses to me.

The defendant has violated the crime of robbery stipulated in Article 263 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) "robbing public or private property by violence, coercion or other means", and it is also "burglary" stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 263 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). According to the provisions of this article, it should be "sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years, life imprisonment or death, and fined or confiscated property". Therefore, the case is still under prosecution, and it is hoped that the public security organs will enforce the law impartially and investigate the criminal responsibility of the defendant for burglary.

The criminal facts of this case are evidenced by the administrative judgment of guanxian People's Court of Shandong Province-(1999) GuanxingchuziNo. 16 1 and Liaocheng Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province-(2000) Chaxingzhongzi No.57.

This judgment is not clearly defined as an administrative violation! The statement in the judgment of the first instance is: "We believe that on the first day of the fifth lunar month of 1998, the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, the defendant forcibly detained the tractor of the plaintiff Yao Huaping to Du School on the grounds that it refused to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng, and its administrative action had no legal basis, so this court did not support it." Later, it was stated in the judgment that "the administrative compulsory act of detaining the plaintiff Yao Huaping's tractor by the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian was revoked." The statement in the judgment of second instance is "We believe that the fact that the People's Government of Qingshui Town, guanxian, the appellee, forcibly detained Yao Huaping's tractor to Dujia on May 1998 of the lunar calendar on the grounds that the appellee Yao Huaping refused to pay the agricultural Xia Zheng can be recognized. This administrative act has no legal basis and is illegal. Our hospital will not support it, and the tractor seized by the Appellee shall be returned. " The final verdict is "dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment." Administrative coercion should be understood as an illegal act committed by an administrative organ or its responsible person by virtue of its administrative authority, so these two judgments are relatively fair, at least confirming the fact that Yue Qixiang robbed-"illegal act" is not an administrative violation! It's just that the administrative office can't judge his criminal responsibility! But at that time, the people's court should take the initiative to hand over the case to the public security organs and investigate the criminal facts of Yue Qixiang and others! If the court does not hand it over, it can at least fight against the statute of limitations, because Yao Huaping's prosecution to the court is to investigate Yue Qixiang's responsibility, that is, the case has been filed for prosecution as stipulated in Article 88 of the Criminal Law, and the public security organ has not filed a case for investigation, which should also be regarded as criminal private prosecution, so the statute of limitations in this case has been interrupted! Once again, request the public security organs to investigate the criminal responsibility of Yue Qixiang and others!

To sum up, according to the third paragraph of Article 84 of the Criminal Procedure Law, "the public security organ, the people's procuratorate or the people's court shall accept reports, complaints and reports. If it is not under its own jurisdiction, it shall be transferred to the competent authority for handling, and the informant, complainant and informant shall be notified; " Guanxian Public Security Bureau didn't give me a reply, and didn't inform me not to file a case! I also hope that the procuratorate will urge the public security organs to continue to file a case for investigation or give me a statement according to the provisions of Articles 86 and 87 of the Criminal Procedure Law on procuratorial supervision!

I am here to convey