Hon’ble S.N.H. Zaidi, J.—This appeal, under Section 18 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2008 of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Gangster Act). Court No. 5. Allahabad, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2008, whereby the application of the respondents has been allowed and order dated 21.8.2008 of District Magistrate, Allahabad passed in Case No. 15 of 2008 refusing to release plot No. 289 of village Lawayan Kalan and the house built thereon has been set aside and the said properties have been released from attachment and ordered to be made over to the applicants­respondents.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the District Magistrate Allahabad, by order dated 24.7.2008 passed under Section 14 (1) of the Act, attached certain movable and immovable properties of one Dilip Kumar Misra of village Lawayan Kalan, Police Station Audyogik Kshetra, district Allahabad, who was an accused of Case Crime No. 219 of 2007 registered under Section 2/3 (1) of the Act. Against that order said Dilip Misra made a representation (Case No. 15 of 2008) under Section 15 (1) of the Act to the District Magistrate (D.M.), who by a detailed order dated 21 .8.2008, refusing to release the properties from attachment, dismissed the representation and referred the matter with his report to the Special Judge (Gangster Act) Allahabad, under Section 16 (1) of the Act. The respondents, namely, Manoj Kumar Pandey, Jitendra Kumar Pandey and Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, who are the brothers-in-law of Dilip Misra made an application on 2.9.2008 to the Special Judge for releasing plot No. 289 of village Lawayan Kalan and the house built thereon from attachment on the ground that they are the recorded owners of the plot in the revenue record and have constructed the house on it with their own funds and Dilip Misra has no concern with it. The Special Judge in the inquiry made under Section 16 of the Act examined area Lekhpals. Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Adhikari of the concerned village and the Station Officer of the concerned police station as Court witnesses and allowed the application of the respondents after holding that the said plot and house were not acquired by Dilip Misra and the applicants are its actual owners and ordered for its release in their favour by the impugned judgment. The State Government has challenged the same in this appeal.

3. I have heard Shri. D.R. Chaudhary learned Government Advocate for the appellant and Shri. Gopal Chaturvedi learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri. L.K. Divedi appearing for the respondents and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record of the lower Court.

4. Learned Government Advocate (G.A.) has contended that for the last several years Dilip Misra had formed a gang with several persons and committed offences triable under the Act and as a result of those offences acquired several movable and immovable properties worth crores of rupees in his name as well as, by way of benami transactions, in the names of his wife and other relatives, including his brothers-in-law (the respondents) and when his properties were attached he alone made the representation. It is also contended that if the respondents were having any claim over any of the attached properties then they should have also made the representation to the D.M., as envisaged in Section 15 (1) of the Act, but instead of making any representation they directly approached the Court of Special Judge by making an application before it and the learned Special Judge ignoring the contentions of the State that the respondents could not make any application to the Court directly without following the provisions of Section 15 of the Act and without looking into the locus standi of the respondents proceeded with the matter and committed serious error in allowing that application.

5. It has also be