The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'reason to believe' for property attachment under S. 14 of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, and the burden of proof on the claimant under S. 16(5). The judgment also clarifies the inapplicability of appeal provisions under S. 18 to challenge the attachment orders and the maintainability of writ petitions under Art. 226 in certain circumstances.

( 1 ) SINCE these two writ petitions arise out of the judgment and order dated 8-12-2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Merrut in Special Case No. 14/11 of 2001, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. The grievance of the petitioner is that the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act") is a draconian law with the aid of which and on the basis of a false and concocted report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut that the petitioner Badan Singh being a gangster acquired properties as a result of commission of several offences triable under the Act, the District Magistrate, Meerut attached the residential house as well as movable properties belonging to all the petitioners. Thereupon, on a reference being made, the learned Special Judge modified the order of the District Magistrate and released part of residential house and cash amounting to Rs. 78,573. 00 from attachment. Being aggrieved by the orders of the District Magistrate as well as the Special Judge, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the said two orders and for release rest of the properties from attachment.

( 2 ) FOR better appreciation of the questions of law involved in these proceedings, a few emerging from the impugned order of attachment, annexure-1 may briefly be stated thus : the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut by letter dated 9-6-2000 moved the District Magistrate, Meerut for attachment of movable and immovable properties in possession of Badan Singh, one of the writ petitioners alleging that he is a gangster and has been involved in large number of cases of murder, theft and extortion etc. since 1986. He has an organised gang whose main activity is to acquire wealth by putting the general public in fear of death or hurt. Being a gangster and by his criminal activities, he acquired vast wealth with the help of which he constructed a palatial building bearing house No. 8 (new No. 9) at Beripura under Transport Nagar P. S. in the city of Meerut and purchased luxury goods. As borne out from the attachment order Annexure-1, the District Magistrate on the basis of the aforesaid report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut and also the information received from other sources was satisfied that Badan Singh being a gangster amassed wealth as a result of commission of offences under the Act and having held thus attached the properties. The petitioners made a representation to the District Magistrate for release of the properties from attachment. The specific case of petitioner Badan Singh was that no materials were placed before the District Magistrate that the properties said to be in his possession had been acquired by him as a gangster as a result of commision of any offence under the Act. The impugned order though indicates that the District Magistrate attached the properties basing upon the report of the S. S. P. , Meerut as well as the information received from other sources, however, the details of any such information received from other sources are conspicuously absent in the said order. His further case was that most of the criminal cases registered against him have ended in acquittal and others have been stayed pursuant to the order of this Court. He refuted the allegation that he is a gangster and acquired any property as a result of commission of any offence. His positive assertion was that the land over which the house in question is situated was purchased by his father Charan Singh in 1966 and by that time he was not born. His father died leaving behind his three sons and four daughters and all the sons have their independent source of income with the aid of which they are maintaining their family. It was specifically urged that some of the attached movables belong to ladies and children. The District Magistrate upon hear