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 relevant act.

JUDGMENT :

Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. In the present criminal appeal the judgment and order dated 9.8.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Gangster Act, Sonebhadra in Criminal Misc. Case No. 245 of 2021, 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 order of the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra dated 31.8.2021 dismissing the objection moved by the appellant has been affirmed, has been questioned.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra passed an order under Section 14 (1) of the GANGSTERS ACT attaching the vehicles of the appellant on the basis of report of in-charge Inspector, Police Station Shahganj, District Sonbhadra dated 16.12.2020, submitted through Superintendent of Police, Sonebhadra. It was mentioned in the report that During investigation of Case Crime No. 19 of 2019 under Section 3 (1) of the Act, it was found that appellant owned vehicle ‘Bolero’ and a ‘Tractor’ which were purchased with illegally earned money by his father Rajendra Patel as gangster.

3. The District Magistrate, Sonebhadra relying upon the police report, above mentioned, based upon the criminal history of Rajendra Patel, the father of the appellant, and submissions made therein that the two vehicles, detailed below, had been acquired by the gangster Rajendra Patel as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, passed the aforesaid order for attachment dated 28.12.2020 of both the vehicles under Section 14 (1) of the Act, detailed as hereunder :

(i) Vehicle ‘Tractor’ bearing registration No. UP64-AH 9894 (total value Rs. 5,00,000/-).

(ii) Vehicle ‘Bolero’ bearing registration No. UP64-AL 0349 (total value Rs. 13,00,000/-).

4. Against the aforesaid attachment order, the appellant made a representation under Section 15 (1) of the Act to the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, who dismissed the same and affirmed the order of attachment dated 28.12.2020.

Simultaneously, he referred the matter to the Court of Special Judge, Gangster Act under Section 16 (1) of the Act vide order dated 31.8.2021. The appellant approached the competent Court at Sonebhadra but his application was rejected by the Special Judge Gangster Act, Sonebhadra vide order dated 9.8.2023. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Court.

5. Heard Shri Rakesh Chandra Tiwari, 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 no criminal case is lodged/pending against the appellant in the district Sonebhadra. On the basis of pendency of the following criminal cases, in which the father of the appellant had been falsely implicated, proceeding under the Act was initiated by the Station House Officer, P.S. Shahganj, district Sonebhadra against the father of the appellant.

(i) Case Crime No. 144 of 2018, under Sections 392, 34, 411, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Karma, district Sonebhadra.

(ii) Case Crime No. 501 of 2018, under Section 392 IPC, P.S. Robertsganj, district Sonebhadra. (iii) Case Crime No. 712 of 2018, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, P.S. Robertsganj, district Sonebhadra.

(iv) Case Crime No. 74 of 2018, under Sections 323, 392, 341, 389, 504, 506, 411 IPC, P.S. Shahganj, district Sonebhadra.

(v) Case Crime No. 142 of 2018, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, P.S. Karma, district Sonebhadra.

(vi) Case Crime No. 14 of 2019, under Section 13(1) Gangster Ac