IMPORTANT POINT
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 rational nexus between the criminal act and property acquisition.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the present criminal appeal the judgment and order dated 5.11.2022 passed by Special Judge Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Aligarh in Criminal Misc. Case No. 330 of 2022, which is a reference made to the court under Section 15(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") whereby the orders of the District Magistrate, Aligarh dated 13.8.2021 seizing/attaching the vehicle of appellant under Section 14 of the Act as well as order dated 23.5.2022 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, Aligarh passed an order under Section 14(1) of the Act seizing/attaching the vehicle of the appellant on the basis of report of in-charge Inspector, Police Station Pisawa, District Aligarh dated 29.7.2021, submitted through S.S.P., Aligarh. It was mentioned in the report that during investigation of Case Crime No. 88 of 2021 under Section 2/3 of the Act, it was found that appellant owned a vehicle Scorpio bearing registration no. UP 81-BL2333 which was purchased with illegally earned money as gangster in the year 2016.

3. Against the aforesaid attachment/seizure order, the appellant made a representation under Section 15(1) of the Act to the District Magistrate, Aligarh, who dismissed the same and affirmed the order of attachment dated 13.8.2021. Simultaneously, he referred the matter to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangster Act under Section 16(1) of the Act vide order dated 23.5.2022. The appellant approached the competent Court at Aligarh but his application was rejected by the Special Judge Gangster Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Aligarh vide order dated 5.11.2022. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Court.

4. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in two criminal cases i.e. Case Crime No. 71 of 2021 under Sections 420, 272, 273, 120-B IPC and 60(1) Excise Act, P.S. Pisawa, District Aligarh and Case Crime No. 72 of 2021 under Sections 420, 272, 273, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 60(1) Excise Act, P.S. Pisawa, District Aligarh. On the basis of pendency of the aforesaid two cases, proceeding under the Act was initiated by the Station House Officer, P.S. Pisawa, district Aligarh against the appellant. It is also submitted that the Scorpio vehicle said to be in his possession was purchased with the money earned by him. He took a loan of Rs. 12,50,000/- from Canara Bank, S.M.E. Branch, Aligarh on 31.5.2016 and repaid the same by way of EMI for Rs. 20,255/-. He had filed income tax return showing his income in the years 2015-16 as Rs. 10,15,504/-, 2016-17 as Rs. 6,23,497/-, 2017-18 as Rs. 09,39,162/-, 2018-19 as Rs. 03,18,350/-, 2019-20 as Rs. 03,01,350/-. It is further submitted that he had paid the cash money of Rs. 03,06,200/- from the earning of agricultural products. It is further submitted that the District Magistrate, Aligarh did not consider the plea of appellant and arbitrarily confirmed his order of attachment while rejecting his representation and holding that the vehicle was procured by illegally earned money by a gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act and referred the case to Special Judge Gangster Act, Aligarh. It is further submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 4, Aligarh passed the order dated 5.11.2022, under challenge in this appeal, upholding the orders of the District Magistrate dated 13.8.2021 and 23.5.2022 and dismissed the application of the appellant which is illegal and against the mandate of law.

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the contentions made by learned counsel for