IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Mohan Singh and Six Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No.341 of 2022
Decided on : 10-03-2022
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities - Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a Writ Petition to quash an order and to direct the attachment of properties under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The District Magistrate did not decide the application under Section 14 of the Act within the stipulated period, and the impugned order was passed without proper exercise of jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the District Magistrate to decide the application afresh in accordance with the law.
Issues: Failure of the District Magistrate to decide the application under Section 14 of the Act and the sustainability of the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The District Magistrate must exercise jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act, and the impugned order cannot be sustained without proper action in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the District Magistrate was directed to decide the application within a period of two months.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 24.03.2021, passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun, the respondent no.2; and, a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to attach the properties of the respondent nos.4 to 9 under the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
2. Heard Mr. Sagar Kothari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. T.C. Agarwal, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State.
3. Mr. Sagar Kothari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 contacted the petitioners and other persons and offered a scheme. The petitioners deposited a huge amount of money under the said scheme. The respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 refused to return the money and jewellery, deposited by the petitioners, and, other persons. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that three FIRs have been registered against the respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 under Sections 420, 406, 120B of the IPC and Section 3/4 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that four complaint cases are also pending against the respondent no.5 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and one case against the respondent no.6 is pending under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioners moved an application before the District Magistrate, Dehradun under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act, 1986”). The District Magistrate did not take any action on the said application. Therefore, the petitioners approached to this High Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court directed the District Magistrate to decide the said application, filed under Section 14 of the Act, 1986, within a period of one month. The said application was not decided within the stipulated period. Therefore, the petitioners moved a contempt petition before this Court. During the pendency of the said contempt petition, the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Dehradun.
4. Mr. Sagar Kothari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the said application has not been decided in terms of Section 14 of the Act, 1986. He further argued that while deciding the said application, the District Magistrate, Dehradun observed that several criminal cases are pending before the concerned court, therefore, it will be appropriate that the application, filed under Section 14 of the Act, 1986, should be decided by the court itself. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the said order is not passed as per law.
5. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Sections 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Act, 1986. Sections 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Act, 1986 read as follow:-
(2) The provisions of the Code shall, mutatis mutandis apply to every such attachment.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Code the District Magistrate may appoint an Administrator of any property attached under sub-section (1) and the Administrator shall have all the powers to administer such property in the best interest thereof.
(4) The District Magistrate may provide police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property.
15. Release of property. - (1) Where any property is attach
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.