In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed property attachment orders passed against a man under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court held that the authorities failed to establish that the properties were acquired through criminal activities.
Background:
The case pertains to attachment orders passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri on June 8, 2022 and June 27, 2022 under Section 14(1) of the UP Gangsters Act. The orders attached movable and immovable properties worth over Rs 1.31 crore belonging to Babu Khan, alleging they were acquired through criminal activities. Khan challenged these orders before the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), who dismissed his applications on March 3, 2023. Khan then filed this appeal in the High Court.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether the District Magistrate had sufficient grounds to believe the properties were acquired through criminal activities before ordering attachment
2. Whether properties acquired prior to imposition of Gangsters Act can be attached
3. Burden of proof in establishing source of property acquisition
4. Scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 16 of the Gangsters Act
Court’s Findings:
1. The court held that the District Magistrate passed the attachment orders mechanically based only on police reports, without any independent material to reasonably believe the properties were acquired through crimes. This vitiates the subjective satisfaction required under law.
2. The court noted that most properties were acquired by Khan much before criminal cases were registered against him and Gangsters Act was imposed in 2011. The attachment orders of 2022 failed to establish nexus between alleged crimes and property acquisition.
3. The court emphasized that the initial burden is on the prosecution to show the person is a gangster and acquired properties through criminal activities. Only then does the onus shift to the accused to explain sources. The authorities wrongly placed the entire burden on Khan.
4. The court held that under Section 16, the Special Judge is required to conduct an independent inquiry into the character of property acquisition, instead of mechanically affirming the District Magistrate’s orders. This was not done in the present case.
The court observed that Section 14 of the Gangsters Act is a harsh provision affecting constitutional right to property. Hence, it must be exercised cautiously with proper application of mind.
The Court said:
The object behind providing the power of judicial scrutiny under Section 16 of the Code is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the District Magistrate in depriving a person of his property and to restore the rule of law, therefore a heavy duty lies upon the Court to hold a formal enquiry to find out the truth with regard to the question, whether the property was acquired by or as a result of the commission of an offence triable under the Act. The order to be passed under Section 17 of the Act must disclose reasons and the evidence in support of finding of the Court. The Court is not empowered to act as a post office or mouthpiece of the State or the District Magistrate. If a person has no criminal history during the period the property was acquired by him, how the property can be held to be a property acquired by or as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act is a pivotal question which has to be answered by the Court. Besides, the aforesaid question, the other important question to be considered by the Court is whether the property which was acquired prior to the registration of the case against the accused under the Act or prior to the registration of the first case of the Gangster chart can be attached by
District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act.
Citing previous precedents, the court reiterated that mere involvement in offences is not sufficient to attach property – there must be a clear nexus between criminal acts and property acquisition, which was lacking in this case.
Decision:
Allowing the appeal, the High Court quashed the attachment orders dated June 8, 2022 and June 27, 2022 passed by the District Magistrate as well as the order dated March 3, 2023 passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act). The court directed release of all attached properties in favour of the appellant Babu Khan.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Bench: Justice Shamim Ahmed
– Case: Criminal Appeal No. 1203 of 2023
– Appellant: Babu Khan
– Respondent: State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home
– Lawyers: Satendra Nath Rai (for appellant), Dr. V.K. Singh and Ashok Kumar Singh (for State)
– Judgment Date: July 3, 2024
