Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. MATHUR, U. S. TRIPATHI
KRISHNA MURARI AGRAWAL ALIAS DEEPAK - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JHANSI - Respondents
CRI. M. W. P. 6215 Of 2000
Decided On : 11/06/2000
Attachment - U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social (Activities) Prevention Act 1986 - The court held that the question of whether the property attached has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence under the Act is a pure question of fact, and the claim that the property has not been acquired by commission of an offence or that it is an ancestral property can only be established by appraisal of the evidence. The Act provides a complete machinery for appeal, and therefore, the court did not consider it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The property of the petitioner was attached under Section 14 (1) of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social (Activities) Prevention Act 1986. The petitioner made a representation against the order of attachment, which was rejected by the District Magistrate and referred to the Special Judge (Gangsters Act). The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the question of whether the property attached has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence under the Act is a pure question of fact, and the claim that the property has not been acquired by commission of an offence or that it is an ancestral property can only be established by appraisal of the evidence. The court did not consider it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was the attachment of the petitioner's property under the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social (Activities) Prevention Act 1986 and the rejection of the petitioner's representation against the order of attachment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act provides a complete machinery for appeal, and the question of fact regarding the acquisition of the property by a gangster can only be established by appraisal of the evidence. Therefore, the court did not interfere with the decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed the proceedings referred to the Special Judge to be concluded expeditiously.
( 2 ) THE petitioner made a representation against the order of attachment under Section 16 (1) of the said Act. The District Magistrate by his order dated 12-10-2000 rejected the representation and referred the matter with his report to the Special Judge (Gangsters Act) in accordance with Section 16 (1) of the Act. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
( 3 ) WE have heard Sri. UK Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have perused the record.
( 4 ) THE question whether the property attached has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offenceunder U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 is a pure question of fact. The claim of the petitioner that the property has not been acquired by commission of an offence or that it is an ancestral property can only be established by appraisal of the evidence. It will be open to the petitioner to lead oral and documentary evidence in support of his claim before the Special Judge (Gangsters Act) where the matter has been referred. Such appraisal of evidence is not possible in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Act provides a complete machinery as against the decision of the Court an appeal lies under Section 18 of the Act.
( 5 ) IN these circumstances we do not consider it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the house of the petitioner has been attached and he is suffering great hardship and, therefore, a direction may be issued to the Special Judge concerned to decide the proceedings at an early date.
( 7 ) TAKING into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the proceedings referred to the Special Judge by the District Magistrate under Section 16 (1) of the Act shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months of the filing of a certified copy of this order before the Court concerned. It is understood that the petitioner will co-operate with the enquiry and will not seek adjournments unless absolutely necessary.
( 8 ) SUBJECT to the observations made above, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed
.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
