HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 200 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986"), challenging the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Mau (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Gangsters Court") in Miscellaneous Case No. 177/2023, whereby the learned court below set aside the attachment order dated 31.12.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Mau under Section 14(1) of the Act and directed release of vehicle No. UP 54 AL/4930, a Spendour Plus Motorcycle, in favour of the respondent/claimant Vinay Rai @ Raja Rai, son of Kamlesh Kumar Rai, resident of Hathini, Police Station Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau. BRIEF FACTS 2. That the SHO, Sarai Lakhansi, District Mau filed a report in Case No. 540/22 stating that the respondent Vinay Rai, through illegally earned money, purchased a motorcycle and forwarded the same for attachment under Section 14(1) of the Act of 1986. 3. That against the respondent, multiple criminal cases were registered, including Criminal Case No. 468/22 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 507, 302 IPC and Section 7 CLA; Criminal Case No. 475/22 under Section 3/25 Arms Act; Cr. Case No. 540/22 under Section 3(1) Gangster Act; Cr. Case No. 1833/16 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC; and Criminal Case No. 194/2021 under Section 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC. 4. That the District Magistrate, Mau passed the impugned attachment order Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : A. K. Sand Counsel for Respondent(s) : Santosh Kumar Rai State of U.P. .....Appellant(s) Vinay Rai @ Raja Rai .....Respondent(s) dated 03.12.2022, attaching the said vehicle under Section 14(1) of the Act. 5. That no representation under Section 15 of the Act was filed by the respondent as he was in jail at the relevant time, and was released only in August 2023. 6. That by order dated 03.04.2023, the District Magistrate referred the matter to the learned Gangsters Court under Section 16(1) of the Act, which thereafter exercised its powers under Section 17 of the Act. 7. That the learned Gangsters Court, vide its order dated 04.10.2023, allowed the reference in favour of the respondent, set aside the attachment order and directed release of the vehicle, holding the attachment order to be arbitrary, mechanical and without proper application of judicial mind. 8. Aggrieved thereby, the State has filed the present appeal. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State submitted that the District Magistrate correctly appreciated the material on record and was fully satisfied that the respondent had acquired the vehicle in question through illegal means by involving himself in anti-social activities as defined under the Gangster Act. 10. It was further urged that the competent authority passed the order after duly considering the report of the Superintendent of Police as also the report of the Station House Officer, and therefore the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. 11. It was also submitted that the DM has pointed out that the respondent was not able to demonstrate the lawful source of income from which the attached vehicle was acquired, and therefore the attachment order deserved to be sustained. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the vehicle in question was legally acquired by the respondent through income earned from a Brick Kiln and a shop dealing in building material ("Raju Building Material"), of which the respondent's father is the proprietor, and that the respondent resides in a joint household. 13. It was submitted that the respondent produced documentary evidence in support of his claim, including the registration certificate of the CRLA No. 200 of 2024 2 proprietorship of Raju Building Material, GST receipts, and evidence of regular tax filing. 14. It was further submitted that the District Magistrate passed the attachment order without any application of mind, solely on the basis of the police report, without conducting any independent inquiry into the source of acquisition of the vehicle. 15. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in Badan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2001 (43) ACC, Smt. Kahkashan Parveen and Anr. v. State of UP, 2000(1) JIC 263 (All), the judgment in Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2018 SCC Online All 5986, and the Supreme Court judgment in Waseem Khan v. State of UP. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, and having carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Gangsters Court, the record of the lower court, and the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Rules, 2021, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons: A. The Statutory Scheme Governing Attachment and Release 17. Section 14(1) of the Act of 1986 empowers the District Magistrate to attach movable or immovable property in possession of any person, where he has reason to believe that such property has been acquired by a gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act. The phrase "reason to believe" carries a threshold higher than mere suspicion or conjecture. It must be founded on relevant and material grounds and not on bald police assertions. 18. Section 16 provides for a judicial inquiry by the Gangsters Court, which is entrusted with the powers of a Civil Court to determine factual and legal issues, and Section 17 mandates that the order passed thereunder must disclose reasons and evidence in support of the court's finding. 19. The statutory scheme has been elaborately considered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Badan Singh alias Baddo v. State of U.P., 2002 Cri LJ 1392, wherein it was held: "Section 14 of the Act is a harsh provision that affects one's right CRLA No. 200 of 2024 3 to property, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution. The initial burden was upon the State to satisfy the District Magistrate with necessary materials that a gangster acquired the properties as a result of commission of any offence. The Act does not provide that the aggrieved person seeking release of the properties from attachment must prove the source of income for acquisition thereof." 20. Similarly, in Rajbir Singh Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2018 SCC Online All 5986, paras 16 and 18, this Court held that for action under Section 14, there must be materials for objective determination of the District Magistrate that the person is either a member, leader or organiser of a gang and has acquired property in commission of any offence under the Act. There must be a nexus between his criminal act and the property acquired by him. Mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to attach his property. B. Infirmities in the Attachment Order Dated 31.12.2022 21. From a perusal of the attachment order dated 31.12.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Mau, this Court finds the following critical infirmities, which were rightly noted by the learned court below: (i) The attachment order was passed solely on the basis of the police report submitted by the officer-in-charge of P.S. Sarai Lakhansi. No material was supplied to the District Magistrate to independently form a reason to believe that the vehicle in question was acquired by the respondent as a result of the commission of any offence triable under the Act. (ii) The order does not record the District Magistrate's subjective satisfaction with reasons as required under Section 14(1). The language of Section 14(1) is unambiguous — it requires "reason to believe", a standard stronger than mere suspicion, and the same must be demonstrably reflected in the order itself. (iii) The District Magistrate did not conduct any independent inquiry into the source of income of the respondent before passing the order, as mandatorily required under Rule 36 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Rules, 2021, which requires a thorough investigation of the property of the gangster and the source of its acquisition, including a CRLA No. 200 of 2024 4 detailed description of known sources of income, ancestral property, and collected evidence of economic transactions. (iv) The beet information registered against the respondent was found to be false and was registered only to harass him. Everyone in the area was acquainted with the brick kiln and building material shop of the respondent's family, which itself proves that the beet information was not true. (v) The vehicle was attached while the respondent was in judicial custody. He was not served with any notice of attachment, and by the time he was released in August 2023, the period for filing a representation under Section 15 of the Act had already lapsed. This procedural failure caused grave prejudice to the respondent. (vi) The respondent produced documentary evidence — including the registration certificate of proprietorship of Raju Building Material, GST receipts, and evidence of regular tax filing — demonstrating that the vehicle was purchased from legally earned income. The prosecution, on the other hand, produced no detailed or credible record to counter this evidence. (vii) As rightly observed by the learned Gangsters Court, the vehicles were purchased much prior to the registration of criminal cases and imposition of the Gangster Act upon the respondent. No nexus has been established between the acquisition of the vehicle and the proceeds of any offence triable under the Act. C. The Rule of Law Cannot Yield to Mechanical Orders 22. The object of conferring power upon the court under Section 16 is precisely to check arbitrary exercise of power by administrative authorities and to ensure that no person is deprived of his property except in accordance with law. The learned Gangsters Court has discharged this function conscientiously and in accordance with the settled principles of law. 23. In the absence of any material beyond the police report, the District Magistrate could not have legally ordered attachment of the respondent's vehicle. As the Apex Court has held in a catena of cases, the Court is not expected 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 can the property be held to be acquired as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act? This is a pivotal CRLA No. 200 of 2024 5 question, and the State has failed to answer it satisfactorily. 24. Furthermore, Rule 37(4) of the Rules of 2021 unequivocally provides that the burden of proving that the property attached has not been acquired by committing an offence is on the accused, but this burden shifts to the respondent only after the prosecution first discharges its initial burden of establishing a prima facie case with material evidence. In the present case, the prosecution failed at the very first stage. 25. Rule 17 of the Rules of 2021, pertaining to independence of mind in gangchart proceedings, mandates that the competent authority shall exercise its own independent mind. A rubber-stamp gangchart without any subjective satisfaction recorded amounts to a failure of the authority to exercise its free mind. The present case discloses precisely such a failure. D. No Ground for Interference 26. This Court, sitting in appellate jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act, does not lightly interfere with well-reasoned orders of the court below. The order of the learned Gangsters Court dated 04.10.2023 is a speaking, well- reasoned order, which has correctly appreciated both the legal position and the factual matrix. It has correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in Badan Singh, Rajbir Singh Tyagi, and Smt. Kahkashan Parveen (supra). No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is discernible in the impugned order. 27. The State has been unable to point out any material error of law or fact in the order of the learned court below that would warrant this Court's interference. The mere fact that the respondent is named in multiple criminal cases is not sufficient, standing alone, to justify attachment of property acquired through lawful means. 28. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, the present appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed. 29. The order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Mau in Miscellaneous Case No. 177/2023 is hereby affirmed. 30. The attachment order dated 31.12.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, CRLA No. 200 of 2024 6 Mau under Section 14(1) of the Act, attaching vehicle No. UP 54 AL/4930 (Spendour Plus Motorcycle) in the name of the respondent Vinay Rai @ Raja Rai, stands set aside. 31. The District Magistrate, Mau is directed to release the said vehicle forthwith in favour of the respondent/claimant Vinay Rai @ Raja Rai on such conditions as he thinks fit. 32. It is, however, made clear that this judgment shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal cases pending against the respondent, which shall be decided strictly on their own merits and in accordance with law. 33. Let a certified copy of this order be made available to the parties expeditiously. January 7, 2026 Pravesh Mishra CRLA No. 200 of 2024 7 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad