Allahabad High Court: District Magistrate Must Refer Rejected Property Release to Court Under Gangsters Act

In a significant clarification of procedural mandates under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the Allahabad High Court has held that a District Magistrate cannot simply reject an application for release of attached property; he must refer the matter to the competent court.

A division bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant quashed an order passed by the District Magistrate of Firozabad on March 9, 2026, which had rejected a plea filed by Pooja Devi, the wife of alleged gangster Sushil Kumar alias Satta, seeking release of properties attached under Section 14 of the Gangsters Act.

The Case and the Legal Lacuna

The petitioner's properties were attached on July 22, 2025, under Section 14(1) of the Act, following the registration of a gangsters case against her husband. In December 2025 and January 2026, she moved applications under Section 15 of the Act, seeking release of the attached property.

The District Magistrate's rejection order catalogued Sushil Kumar's criminal history, noting that he had entered the world of crime in 2011 and that 19 cases — including allegations of robbery, kidnapping, rape, murder, and criminal intimidation — were registered against him. The DM concluded that the properties were acquired from the proceeds of crime and that the petitioner failed to prove legitimate sources of income.

However, the High Court found a critical procedural flaw: while the DM rejected the application under Section 15, he failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 16(1) of the Act, which explicitly requires the District Magistrate to refer the matter with his report to the court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Gangsters Act.

Court's Scrutiny of Section 16(1)

The bench extracted Section 16(1) of the Gangsters Act , which states: "Where no representation is made within the period specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15 or the District Magistrate does not release the property under sub-section (2) of Section 15 he shall refer the matter with his report to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under this Act."

The Court observed that the mandate of Section 16(1) is clear: if the District Magistrate declines to release the attached property on an application under Section 15(1), he is liable to refer the matter to the court. In this case, no such reference was made by the District Magistrate. The Government Advocate, on instructions, did not dispute this factual omission.

Key Observations from the Bench

The High Court did not mince words in characterizing the DM's order, holding:

"The impugned order is in the teeth of the Section 16(1) of the Gangsters Act ."

The Court further noted that the District Magistrate's order purported to exercise powers under Section 16 of the Act, yet ignored the very provision's requirement for a reference to the court.

Decision and Remedy

Finding the order legally unsustainable, the High Court quashed the District Magistrate's decision dated March 9, 2026. The matter has been remitted back to the District Magistrate, Firozabad, with a direction to decide the petitioner's representation for release of property afresh, in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the High Court's order.

The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated.

Implications

This ruling reinforces that the procedural safeguards built into the Gangsters Act must be strictly followed. District Magistrates cannot act as final arbiters on property attachment disputes; they must involve the competent court when rejecting release applications. The decision ensures that property owners facing attachment under the Gangsters Act receive a judicial hearing before their claims are finally rejected, rather than being left with only an executive order.