SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 1507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Chaudhary, Narendra Kumar Johari, JJ.
Siraj Ahmad Khan Thru. Farheen Naz And Another - Petitioner
Versus
The Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh And Others – Respondents
Criminal misc. Writ petition No. - 5205 of 2024
Decided On : 09-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Jyotiresh Pandey,Ashish Kumar Jain
For the Respondent: G.A.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the provisional attachment of properties under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act, emphasizing the petitioners' failure to prove lawful acquisition and the necessity of pursuing statutory remedies.

Headnote:

(A) Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 14(1) - Provisional attachment of properties - Petitioners challenged the attachment of properties acquired by alleged proceeds of crime - The Commissioner of Police confirmed attachment after considering representations and providing opportunity of hearing - Petitioners failed to prove lawful source of income for property acquisition - Writ petition rejected. (Paras 1, 10, 14, 26)

(B) Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the petitioners to prove that the properties were not acquired through criminal activities - The court emphasized that the statutory remedies under the Act must be pursued. (Paras 12, 23, 24)

Facts of the case:

The petitioners challenged the order of provisional attachment of properties under the Act, claiming they were acquired through legitimate means, while the police asserted they were obtained through criminal activities.

Findings of Court:

The court found that the petitioners could not provide sufficient evidence to prove the lawful acquisition of the properties, thus upholding the attachment.

Issues: The main issues were whether the properties were acquired through proceeds of crime and if the petitioners were given a fair opportunity to contest the attachment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners did not meet the burden of proof regarding the lawful acquisition of properties, and the statutory framework provided adequate remedies for their grievances.

Result: Writ petition rejected.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Kumar Johari, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents and perused the record.

2. Having considered the facts, circumstances and submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A., we do not considered necessary it to call for the counter affidavit from the respondents.

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought following main reliefs :-

    "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order dated 10.06.2024 passed by Respondent No.2, annexed with the petition as annexure No.1 & 2,

    (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondent No.2 & 3, to release the seized properties attached by him,

    (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, to the Respondent No.2 & 3, to permit the Representative of the Petitioners, for taking the Mango Crop at the seized Agricultural Farm of the Petitioners,

    (iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, to the Respondent No.2 & 3, for ensuring the videography of the Mango Orchard and Residential House at the time of the release."

4. The facts of the case, in short, are that informant Fareed Ahmad Khan lodged an F.I.R. with the contention that on 02.02.2024 at 15.30 hours, accused Siraj Ahmad @ Lallan Khan reached at the place of occurrence with his persons by Mahendra Thar vehicle and started threatening and abusing his family members. Accused Siraj Ahmad @ Lallan Khan who is an old history-sheeter was carrying a loaded rifle in his hands. Having heard the noise, the cousin of the informant, namely, Munir Khan, who was present at his house, tried to pacify Siraj Khan but Siraj and his son Faraz Khan started exhorting by saying that kill all the family members. Thereafter, Siraj Khan opened fire on Hanjla Khan, who was the minor son of the informant. Having seen the occurrence, cousin of informant, Munir Khan tried to stop him but the accused fired upon him also. When his wife Farin Khan tried to stop them, then Faraj Khan snatched the gun from his father and shot fire at Farin Khan. Consequently, all the three persons died on the spot. He further submitted that above occurrence has been recorded in Camera, which was installed in his residence. Accordingly, an F.I.R. under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. vide Crime No.0030/2024 was registered at Police Station Malihabad, Lucknow against the accused persons. During investigation, Section 34 I.P.C. as well Section 27/30 of Arms Act were also added. As a result of investigation, prima facie, commission of offence was found. Consequently, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against named accused persons on 17.02.2024.

5. The S.H.O., Police Station Mall, Lucknow/Investigating Officer of the case submitted his report on 04.03.2024, which was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner (Upayukt) of Police (West), Lucknow to Police Commissioner, Lucknow. Upon perusal of the report of S.H.O./Investigating Officer along with the documents annexed with the report, the fact came into knowledge of the Police Commissioner that the accused petitioner No.1-Siraj Khan @ Lallan Khan is a vicious offender and under his leadership, a well organized gang is being run. The accused/petitioner No.1 himself along with other members of his gang, is engaged in criminal activities. Infact the accused Siraj Khan was born in an ordinary family and he was brought up by his parents in normal ways. Desirous of lavish life, the accused entered into the field of crime. Thereafter, he established a well organized gang and to get the temporal pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself, started committing offences. The accused has committed offences like Mar-peet, abusing, loot, attempt to murder and murder, just to create his fear and terror in public. Feared by his terror, people could not dare to come forward to lodge complaints or to witness his

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    Judicial Analysis

    AI

    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top