By the Court.—The petitioner who is a member of the scheduled caste, has come up before this Court questioning the order of the District Magistrate, Kaushambi dated 18.12.2014 arising out of proceedings of attachment and refusal to release a truck that had been seized invoking the provisions of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The background in which this seizure was made is to the effect that the petitioner was implicated in three other criminal cases, namely, Case Crime No. 117 of 2012 under Section 379 IPC r/w Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act, Case Crime No. 140 of 2012 under Section 379 IPC r/w Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act and the third case being Case Crime No. 146 of 2012 under Sections 399/401 IPC.

2. It appears from the record that the truck in question bearing registration No. U.P 70 N 9212 is registered in the name of the petitioner and the same came to be seized in the aforesaid criminal cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been bailed out in the said criminal cases, but on the strength of the same cases the petitioner has been booked under Section 2/3 of the 1986 Act, where also he has been bailed out on 14.8.2013 by the competent Court.

3. The truck was seized in Case Crime No. 146 of 2012. A release application was filed where it was noticed that the said truck was also subject-matter of seizure in Case Crime Nos. 140 of 2012 and 117 of 2012 as noted above. The truck had already been released in the said cases on 15.5.2013. Consequently, a release order was also passed on 22.1.2014 in relation to Case Crime No. 146 of 2012. The said orders have been filed on record.

4. However, since the petitioner had been booked under the Gangster Act, the said truck became subject-matter of detention after putting the petitioner to notice on the ground that this truck appears to have been purchased from sources that have its genesis in the cases of theft registered against the petitioner. An ex parte order was passed against the petitioner on the basis of a police report on 30.7.2014 attaching the said truck under the provisions of the 1986 Act. The petitioner filed his objection that is on record whereafter the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate observing that since the petitioner has not been able to give effective details with regard to the source of his earnings from where he has acquired this truck and the information given is unclear, his objection deserves to be rejected.

5. The case of the petitioner was that he had received a reimbursement against the insurance policy of his son who had died, and that money had been utilized by him that was transacted through a Post Office and a Bank account whereafter it was ultimately utilized for the purchase of the truck through a finance company.

6. The learned District Magistrate has opined that from the said Post Office transaction is not clear as to whether the amount had been received by the applicant or not and how much further amount had been financed by the private finance company referred to in the objection. Similarly, the transaction through the State Bank of India in relation to the said reimbursement of the policy amount is also not clear. It is this order that is assailed herein.

7. Having heard Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.K. Sand, learned A.G.A., the prayer made by Sri Shukla in this petition is to the effect that if the District Magistrate Kaushambi was refusing to release the attached property, which is a truck, in terms of Section 15 read with Section 16 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 then he ought to have referred the matter to the Court of the Special Judge for determination and having failed to do so, the impugned order is vitiated as it does not comply with the provisions of Section 16(1) of the Act.

8. Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the D