Hon’ble Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri O.P.Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kamal Kishor Mishra, Sri A.N.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P.and perused the lower Court record.

This appeal under Section 18 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Maina Devi against the order dated 17.3.2009 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2 of 2009 whereby the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act) affirmed the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Mau by which the application under Section 15(1)(2) of U.P.Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Gangster Act’) moved by the appellant for releasing the house Nos. 204-D/8 and 205-D/9 situated in Mohalla Chandmari Emiliyan, Police Station Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau, has been rejected, with the prayer that the same may be quashed.

2. The present appeal has been filed on the following grounds :

1. That the impugned order dated 17.3.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and is liable to be quashed by this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly and illegally failed to consider the evidence adduced by the appellant before the District Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge and illegally held that the attached property was acquired by Raj Bahadur as a Gangster as result of the commission of an offence.

3. That the learned District Magistrate has wrongly and illegally relied upon the report of the concern police station and held that the property of the appellant belongs to Raj Bahadur who has acquired the same as a Gangster as result of commission of an offence.

4. That the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly and illegally failed to consider the order passed by the learned District Magistrate as well as failed to consider the report of concern police station upon which the order was passed.

5. That the Sessions Judge has wrongly and illegally approved the order of District Magistrate by which who has given the finding upon the report and held that the house was constructed by the money acquired by Raj Bahadur as a Gangster within 5 to 6 years.

6. That the learned Sessions Judge wrongly and illegally have approved the order passed by District Magistrate without considering the facts that the husband of the appellant was a Government employee and he was posted as a Constable and he was promoted as a Head Constable in P.A.C.in 1977 and in the year 1988 he was promoted as Platoon Commander, was getting the handsome salary.

7. That the learned District Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge have not considered the material facts that the husband of the appellant have 11 Acres fertile land and have obtained the properties from the agricultural sources.

8. That the learned District Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the material facts that building which is subject-matter of present controversy was purchased by the appellant on 10.3.1999 in Araji No. 438 and 18.6.2001 in Araji No. 438 in sum of Rs. 28,000/- and one lac (Rs. 1,00,000/-) respectively from Smt. Vishwakarma Devi, w/o Murat and Satyadeo son of Ram Raj.

9. That the learned District Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider that in year 1999 and 2001 the rate of the land was very low.

10. That the learned Sessions Judge as well as learned District Magistrate have failed to consider the facts that the husband of the appellant have withdraw Rs. 25,000/-, 40,000/-, 40,000/- and 50,000 on 5.6.1997, 26.5.200, 6.6.2002 and 21.7.2003 respectively from his G.P.F.Fund and house was constructed during the period of 7 to 8 years since 1999.

11. That the learned District Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the facts, Kamala Singh father in law of the appellant have sold the lan