Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Meena Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 6772 of 2023
Decided On : 05-02-2024
Gangster Act - Attachment of Properties - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Section 14 - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 14 of the Act, emphasizing the requirement of an objective determination by the District Magistrate and the need for a rational and intelligible nexus between the criminal act and the property acquired. The judgment highlighted the burden of proof on the claimant to show that the properties were not acquired as a result of any offence under the Act. The court found that the properties were acquired by the gangster husband of the appellant and affirmed the orders for attachment.
Fact of the Case:
The District Magistrate ordered the attachment of two properties of the appellant based on the report of the police, alleging that they were acquired by the gangster husband of the appellant as a result of criminal activities. The appellant challenged the orders, claiming that she had purchased the properties with lawful income and was not involved in any criminal activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the properties were acquired by the gangster husband of the appellant and affirmed the orders for attachment, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the lawful acquisition of the properties by the appellant.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the properties were acquired by the appellant as a result of criminal activities, and whether the District Magistrate's orders for attachment were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for an objective determination by the District Magistrate and the burden of proof on the claimant to show that the properties were not acquired as a result of any offence under the Act. It found that the properties were acquired by the gangster husband of the appellant and affirmed the orders for attachment.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the orders for attachment of the properties and dismissed the appellant's appeal.
JUDGMENT :
NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. In the present criminal appeal the judgment and order dated 4.5.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Gangster Act, Court No. 4, Azamgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 04 of 2023, which is a reference made to the Court under Section 16(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) whereby the orders of the District Magistrate, Azamgarh dated 11.8.2022 for attachment of the landed properties of appellant under Section 14 of the Act as well as order dated 28.12.2022 dismissing the objection moved by the appellant have been affirmed, has been questioned.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the District Magistrate, Azamgarh passed an order dated 11.8.2022 under Section 14(1) of the Act for attachment of two landed properties of the appellant on the basis of report of in-charge Inspector, Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh dated 23.7.2022, submitted through Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh. It was mentioned in the report that during investigation of Case Crime No. 467 of 2013 under Section 3(1) of the Act, it was found that Rajendra Yadav, the husband of the appellant owned some landed property in the name of the appellant, which was purchased by him with illegally earned money as gangster.
3. The District Magistrate, Azamgarh relying upon the police report, above mentioned, based upon the criminal history of Rajendra Yadav, the husband of the appellant and submissions made therein that the two properties, detailed below, had been acquired by the gangster Rajendra Yadav as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, passed the aforesaid order for attachment dated 11.8.2022 of both the properties under Section 14(1) of the Act.
(ii) Plot No. 521/732 and 522 measuring 0.134 hec. land out of total area of 0.440 hec. valuing Rs. 5,22,600/- only as per circle rate, purchased on 22.3.2012. (Total value of both plots: Rs. 10,45,200/-).
4. Against the aforesaid attachment order, the appellant and her husband Rajendra Yadav made representation dated 8.9.2022 under Section 15(1) of the Act to the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, who dismissed the same and affirmed the order of attachment dated 11.8.2022. Simultaneously, he referred the matter to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangster Act under Section 16(1) of the Act vide impugned order dated 28.12.2022. The appellant approached the competent Court at Azamgarh but her application was rejected by the Special Judge, Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Azamgarh vide impugned order dated 4.5.2023. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Court.
5. Heard Shri R.C. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the husband of the appellant has been falsely implicated in nine criminal cases, which are as under :
(ii) Case Crime No. 299 of 2010, under Sections 3/5 Arms Act, P.S. Jeeyanpur, District Azamgarh.
(iii) Case Crime No. 223 of 2010, under Sections 307, 34 IPC, P.S. Jeeyanpur, District Azamgarh.
(iv) Case Crime No. 340 of 2010, under Sections 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act, P.S. Jeeyanpur, District Azamgarh.
(v) Case Crime No. 617 of 2010, under Sections 307, 34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Jeeyanpur, District Azamgarh.
(vi) Case Crime No. 02 of 2012, under Section 3(1) Gangster Act, P.S. Jeeyanpur, District Azamgarh.
(vii) Case Crime No. 348 of 2013, under Sections 147, 302, 120-B IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Jeeyanpur, District Azamgarh.
(viii) Case Crime No. 399 of 202
AI
The judgment established the importance of an objective determination by the District Magistrate and the burden of proof on the claimant to show that the properties were not acquired as a result of a....
The court established that for property to be attached under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act, there must be a clear and substantiated connection between the property and criminal activities, and the b....
The main legal point established is that property attachment under the Gangster Act requires sufficient reason to believe that the property was acquired through gangster activities, and a formal inqu....
The main legal point established is that the attachment of property under the Gangster Act requires a formal inquiry to determine if the property was acquired through criminal activities, and the cou....
The attachment of property under the U.P. Gangsters Act requires a clear nexus between the property and criminal activities, which must be proven by the State.
The expression “reason to believe” contemplates an objective determination based on intelligent care and deliberation involving judicial review as distinguished from purely subjective consideration.
The court clarified that mere familial association with a gangster is insufficient for property attachment; there must exist a proven nexus between criminal acts and property acquisition under the re....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'reason to believe' for property attachment under Section 14 of the Act, the burden of proof on the State, and the need for a ra....
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
