Raheesh alias Raees Pradhan v. State of U.P.) arising out Case Crime No

such finding of the trial Court is bad in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court at the time of disposal of appeal has not applied its judicial mind and has illegally recorded the finding that the properties attached in a wrong manner on the basis of police report and failed to appropriate the fact that aforesaid properties were purchased by illegal source of income/ill money and said fact came to the knowledge during the course of investigation in Case Crime No.442 of 2022 alongwith the fact that accused opposite party is a habitual offender and by their illegal and by their illegal means after commission of crime he has earned the money and gaining undue financial benefits. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has not considered the order dated 14.3.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as well as the final order of the District Magistrate, Jalaun dated 14.10.2022 in right perspective. The learned trial Court has also failed to consider the fact about income of the opposite party to purchase their immovable property by borrowing the loan from a bank while they have not produced any authentic documentary evidence in this regard. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has disbelieved the testimonies due to minor contradictions, which is bad in law. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party submits that the opposite party is a dully elected Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchyat-Raghunathpur, Block-Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. He was elected as Gram Pradhan in Panchyat election of the year 2021, reference in this regard is made to certificate issued by the Election Officer, Moradabad dated 3.5.2021, a copy of which is annexed as annexure-CA-1 to the short counter affidavit. It is further submitted that on 08.11.2004 the opposite party purchased 1/3 area of Plot No.66 area 0.077 Hectare, Plot No.79 area 0.040 Hectare and Plot No.71 area 0.312 Hectare total 3 plots total area 0.429 Hectare, village Fauladpur, Tehsil- Thakurdwara, District: Moradabad through registered sale deed by one Jaswant Singh Son of Ramphal Singh. Thereafter, his name was mutated in revenue record. In this regard, the copy of sale deed dated 08.11.2004 and Khatauni of 1427-1432 Fasli are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA-2 to the short counter affidavit. The opposite party has earlier purchased a residential plot of area 434 Sq.Mt. in village Fauladpur, Tehsil-Thakurdwara on 23.07.1999 from one 3 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 Amin Son of Mukhtyar Husain. He has also purchased a plot of area 272 Sq.Mt. in village Asalempur on 20.09.2006 from one Ajizan Son of Hasrat. In this regard, the agreement to sale dated 23.07.1999 and 20.09.2006 are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure No.CA-3 to the short counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that it will be relevant to mention here that on the aforesaid plots of the opposite party, he has taken loan from the bank and the same are mortgaged property of the bank. The opposite party being Gram Pradhan has to jointly operate Account No.85882200111735 in Canara Bank which is the account of Primary School Mid Day Raghunathpur and Account No. 85882000111740 in CANARA BANK which is the account of Primary School Mid Day Fauladpur. In this regard, the copy of statement of account of Account No.85882200111735 and Account No. 85882000111740 are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure No.CA-4 to the short counter affidavit. There is another account No.6513000100023296 of Punjab National Bank, Thakurdwara in which Rs.189.92/- is left. The father of the opposite party resides at village Gopiwala and owns a Tractor John Deer having Registration No.UP 21 CE 9229 and the brother of opposite party namely Mohd. Hamid who also resides at Gopiwala also owns a Tractor Arjun having registration No.UP21AX 4493. Both, the father and brother of the Opposite party was earning from the said tractors for their livelihood and for their family also. In this regard, the copy of registration certificates of the aforesaid both the tractors are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA-5 to the short counter affidavit. The son of the opposite party i.e. the deponent purchased TATA Tipper (Dumper) having registration No. UP21CT5728 (TATA SIGNA 4825 TK BS VI TIPPER) to carry building materials particularly mud/sand from one place to another. He has purchased the aforesaid Tipper after taking loan of Rs.47,21,978.00/- from IndusInd Bank on

30.03.2022 and the margin money of about Rs.9,78,022.00/- was invested by him that too after taking some loan from is near relatives. In this regard, the copy of loan documents and registration documents of Tipper purchased by son of opposite party are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure No.CA-6 to the short counter affidavit. On 14.09.2022 an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.442 of 2022, Under Sections 147, 341, 352, 332, 504, 353 IPC and 21(4) Mines & Mineral Act, PS- Thakurdwara, Dsitrict: Moradabad was lodged by Sri Ashok Kumar, Mines Officer, 4 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 Moradabad against the opposite party and other named and unknown persons in which during investigation Sections 384, 395 IPC and 3 Public Property Prevention of Damages Act were added. The copy of the F.I.R. of Case Crime No.442 of 2022 dated

14.09.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA-7 to the short counter affidavit. On the strength of lodging of aforesaid Case Crime No.442 of 2022 against the opposite party and others, the concerned police has implicated the opposite party and 18 others in Gangster Act U/s-3(1). In this regard, the copy of Gang Chart dated 11.10.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA-8 to the short affidavit. On the basis of aforesaid F.I.R. and Gangster Act imposed on the opposite party, the above mentioned moveable and immovable properties have been seized considering it to be the properties of the opposite party U/s-14(1) of Gangsters Act vide order dated 14.10.2022 (Annexure-2 of Criminal Appeal) passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2022, the opposite party moved an application dated 28.12.2022 before District Magistrate, Moradabad for release of his aforesaid seized moveable and immoveable property ventilating his grievance and narrating the fact that said tractors are not his own nor the TATA TIPPER was purchased by him and two accounts are of Primary Schools regarding MID DAY Scheme. The application of the opposite party was illegally rejected vide order dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure-3 of criminal appeal) by the District Magistrate, Moradabad and the matter was referred to the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad U/s 16(1) of U.P. Gangsters Act where Criminal Misc. Case No.207/2023 (Raheesh @ Raeesh Pradhan Vs. State of U.P.) was registered and notice was issued to be opposite party. After receipt of notice, the opposite party through his counsel submitted his representation/objection against the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad. The learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad by a detailed order dated 21.12.2023 released the bank accounts and immoveable properties including plots and house of the opposite party but illegally did not release Tractors and Tata Tipper, which are in the name of his father, brother and son. The learned court has directed the District Magistrate, Moradabad to give possession of released property to the opposite party after expiry of limitation period of appeal (30 days) within 7 days. This judgment and order dated 21.12.2023 is under 5 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 challenge in the aforesaid appeal. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated

21.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad the State Government has filed above mentioned defective Criminal Appeal on 01.08.2024 i.e. after long delay of about 8 months. Pursuant to judgment and order dated 21.12.2023 the opposite party moved representation before District Magistrate, Moradabad and prayed for release of his immoveable properties in compliance of aforesaid judgment and order dated

21.12.2023, which has been rejected vide order dated 06.09.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad. The copy of the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.9 to the short counter affidavit. The District Magistrate, Moradabad, in fact, has committed contempt of court's order dated 21.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad by not releasing the seized properties after stipulated period, as after 37 days of order dated

21.12.2023 the District Magistrate was duty bound to release the aforesaid seized properties in favour of the opposite party. The action of the District Administration is illegal, arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law the said authority has acted by exceeding his jurisdiction by acting as appellate authority.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

6. Before examining the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to first consider the provisions of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, which read as under: "2(b). "Gang" means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities, namely- ....... 6 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 ....... 2(c). "gangster" means a member or leader or organiser of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities;"

7. On a conjoint reading of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, it appears that for taking action under Section 14 of the Act against a person, there must be material for objective determination of the District Magistrate that he either, as a member, leader or organiser of a gang acquired any property as a result of commission of any offence under the Act. There must be nexus between his criminal act and the property acquired by him. His mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to attach his property, as it is necessary to find out whether his acquisition of property was a result of commission of any offence enumerated in the Act being a gangster. Further, one might have committed several offences but if the property is acquired by him with the aid of his earning from legal source, no action under Section 14 of the Act can be taken against him.

8. Section 14 of the Act reads as under : "14. Attachment of property.- (1) If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether movable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any Court. (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. 7 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 (4) The District Magistrate may provide police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property." This Court had an opportunity to go through the various judgments of this Court viz. S mt. Rashida Bano vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 6 ADJ 575, Badan Singh @ Baddo vs. State of U.P. and others, (2001)10 AHC CK 0033, Smt. Maina Devi vs. State of U.P., 2013 9 ADJ 542, Waseem Khan vs. State of U.P., 2023 LawSuit (All)751 and Criminal Appeal No. 2130 of 2021 (Abrar vs. State of U.P. and another), decided on 23.10.2021 propounding legal dictums on the subject and a co- joint reading of the same leads to draw a conclusion that Section 14 clearly provides that the order of the District Magistrate attaching one's property, must be based on reason and not arbitrary. The expression "reason to believe" appearing therein has some intent and purpose. It puts fetter in the arbitrary exercise of power of attachment to deny a person of his right to any property. Law requires that there must be reason to believe that the property sought to be attached, has been acquired by a ''gangster' as a result of commission of any offence under the Act. The expression "reason to believe" contemplates an objective determination based on intelligent care and deliberation involving judicial review, as distinguished from purely subjective consideration. There must be rational and intelligible nexus between ''reason' and ''belief'. The word 'believe' is a much stronger word than 'suspect' and it involves the necessity of showing that the circumstances were such that a prudent man must have felt convinced in his mind that what has been alleged, is true. The expression "reason to believe" is also defined in Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the said definition, a person is said to have ''reason to believe' a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. "Reason to believe" is not the same thing as the ''suspicion' or ''doubt' and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. "Reason to believe" is a higher level of state of mind. The Court, of course, cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons examined by the authority in coming to the believe, but the Court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing in the matter in regard to which it is required to entertain the belief.

9. To add further, it is to be kept in mind that initial burden is always upon the State to 8 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 satisfy the District Magistrate with necessary materials that the appellant being a gangster acquired the properties as a result of commission of any offence mentioned in Section 2 of the Act. So far as the present case is concerned, this has not been done by the State. It is also to be kept in mind that the opposite party / aggrieved is not liable to establish the source of income to acquire the property in question. It is no requirement of law that the aggrieved person seeking release of properties from attachment must prove the source of income for acquisition thereof. There must be a nexus between the commission of any offence and the acquisition of the property. It reflects from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate concerned that he being influenced by the report of the police, hastened to exercise power under the Act and attached the property in question in absence of any material to show that the said property was acquired as a result of commission of any offence triable under the Act.

10. At this juncture it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of order impugned dated 21.12.2023 which is as under :- "प्रत्यावेदनकतार् रहीश उफर् रईस प्रधान द्वारा न्यायालय में दािखल िकये गये प्रत्यावेदन पत्र में कथन िकया गया है िक आदेश िदनांिकत 14.03.2023 एक पक्षीय व कानून के िवरूद्ध है। उसने मेहनत से काम कर आय अिजत की है। वह आयकर दाता है, िजसके िरटर्न को प्रित व पैन काडर् व आधार काडर् की प्रित संलग्न है। उसका कोई आपरािधक इितहास नहीं है। वह वतर्मान में ग्राम प्रधान है। पुिलस द्वारा िजलािधकारी, मुरादाबाद को गलत व भ्रामक िरपोटर् प्रेिषत की गई है, िजसके आधार पर प्रत्यावेदनकतार् की संपित्त िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा अटैच कर ली गई है। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा कु कर् की गई संपित्त के संबंध में जो िरपोटर् प्रेिषत की गई है, वह िबना िकसी सही जांच व पड़ताल के पुिलस / प्रशासन द्वारा प्रेिषत की गई है। यह िक धारा 14 (1) गैंगस्टर एक्ट के अनुसार- "If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether moveable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any court." उपरोक्त पिरभाषा से स्पष्ट है िक आदेश िवरुद्ध कानून, िनयम व तथ्यों के है। अ0सं0 442/2023, 147,341,352,332,504,353 भा०दं०सं० व 21 (4) खान व खिनज अिध० पुिलस द्वारा जानबूझकर उसे परेशान करने की नीयत से 9 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 फजीर् िलखाया गया है। अिभयोजन की ओर से उसके िवरूद्ध कोई भी ऐसा ठोस साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया गया है और न बताया गया है, जो उसको िकसी संगिठत िगरोह का संचालन / सहस्य सािबत करता हो और न ही िकसी िगरोह का नाम बताया गया है। उसका अपना आय का साधन है और उसी से अिजत आय से वह आयकर अदा करता है। किथत के नरा बैंक, शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा का बचत खाता सं० 85882200111735 उसके नाम नहीं है और न ही पंजाब नेशनल बैंक, शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा का खाता सं० 6513000100023290 है। आदेश में िबदु सं० 1 में ग्राम फौलादपुर में खाता खतौनी सं० 99 क्षेत्रफल 0.143 हे० व ग्राम असलेमपुर में आवासीय भूिम क्षेत्रफल 272 वगर् मीटर व ग्राम फौलादपुर में आवासीय भूिम क्षेत्रफल 434 वगर् मीटर उसके नाम है, िजस पर वह अरसा दराज से कािबज है, इनका बयनामा व इकरारनामा उसके पास है, जो संलग्न है। उपरोक्त संपित्त काफी पुरानी होने के कारण पूवर् में होने के कारण पूवर् में कम कीमत की थी। अब समय के धारा अनुसार कीमतें काफी बढ़ गई हैं। उपरोक्त संपित्तयों / भूिम की खतौनी उसके नाम है और उन पर उसने लोन भी िलया हुआ है। ट्रैक्टर जॉन िडयर पंजीकरण सं० यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0-9229 उसके नाम नहीं है और न ही उसने इसको अपने िपता सद्दीक के नाम कय िकया है। वह ग्राम फौलादपुर का िनवासी है और उसके िपता ग्राम गोपीवाला में रहते हैं। ट्रैक्टर पंजीकरण सं० यू०पी० 21 ए०ए० 1493 उसके भाई मौ० हािमद, िनवासी गोपीवाला का है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् ने उसको कय नहीं िकया है। टाटा डम्पर पंजीकरण सं० यू०पी० 21 सी0टी0 5728 उसने अपने पुत्र दािनश के नाम से कय नहीं िकया है, बिल्क दािनश ने स्वयं कय िकया है और इस पर उसने लोन भी िलया हुआ है। उसने आज तक कोई अवैध खनन का कायर् नहीं िकया है और न ही ऐसा कोई कृ त्य िकया है, िजससे जनता में भय उत्पन्न हो। यिद इस तरह का कोई भी कृ त्य उसके द्वारा िकया गया होता, तो अवश्य ही संबंिधत व्यिक्त द्वारा िशकायत स्पष्ट रूप से अिधकारी के सम्मुख की जाती है और उसका पूणर् िववरण पुिलस िवभाग में मौजूद रहता है। उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है िक उसके िवरूद्ध की गई कायर्वाही पूणर्तः फजीर् है और उसकी साफ सुथरी छिव को धूिमल करने का प्रयास िकया गया है। अतः उसका प्रत्योवदन स्वीकार कर िजला मिजस्ट्रेट का आदेश िदनांक 14.03.2023 को िनरस्त करते हुए उसकी कु कर् शुदा संपित्त को उसके पक्ष में अवमुक्त िकये जाने की याचना की गई है। अिभयोजन की तरफ से िवद्वान िदशेष लोक अिभयोजक द्वारा यह तकर् प्रस्तुत िकया गया है िक अिभयुक्त रहीश द्वारा अवैध खनन के कारोबार से उपरोक्त अवैध संपित्त अिजत की गई है। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा अपने आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 के द्वारा अिभयुक्त रहीश द्वारा अिजत की गई अवैध संपित्तयों को कु कर् िकया गया और उपरोक्त आदेश को िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा अपने आदेश िदनांिकत 14.03.2023 के द्वारा पुष्ट िकया गया। अिभयुक्त रहीश द्वारा 10 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 अिविधक रूप से अिजत आय से प्रश्नगत संपित्त का कय व िनमार्ण िकया गया है और अपनी अिविधक आय से अपने सगे संबंिधयों के नाम पर प्रश्नगत संपित्तयां कय की गई हैं। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा कु कशुदा सम्पित्तयों के अजर्न के िविधक स्रोत के सम्बन्ध में कोई भी संतोषजनक साक्ष्य िजला मिजस्ट्रेट. मुरादाबाद के समक्ष तथा दौरान जांच इस न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत नहीं िकये गये है, जबिक गैंगस्टर एक्ट की धारा-16 (5) यह प्रावधािनत करती है िक यह सािबत करन का भार िक प्रश्नगत सम्पित्त या उसका भाग िकसी िगरोहबन्द द्वारा इस अिधिनयम के अधीन िवचारणीय िकसी अपराध को कािरत करने के पिरणामस्वरूप अिजत नहीं िकया गया है, सम्पित्त पर दावा करने वाले व्यिक्त पर होगा। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा पािरत आदेश िदनांिकत-14.03.2023 पूणर् रूप से िविधसम्मत है, िजसमें िकसी भी प्रकार हस्तक्षेप करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। अिभयोजन द्वारा प्रस्तुत उपरोक्त तकों के जवाब में प्रत्यावेदनकतार् रहीश की तरफ से िवद्वान अिधवक्ता द्वारा तकर् प्रस्तुत िकया गया है िक प्रश्नगत कु कर् शुदा संपित्तयां उसके द्वारा अपने वैध आय स्त्रोतों से अिजत की गई हैं। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्व ारा अपने आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 के माध्यम से ग्राम फौलादपुर में खाता खतौनी सं० 99 क्षेत्रफल 0.143 हे० तथा ग्राम फौलादपुर में ही अिभयुक्त के नाम आवासीय भूिम, िजसका क्षेत्रफल 434 वगर् मीटर है, अपनी आवासीय भूिम में 128.52 वगर् मीटर कवडर् एिरया में िनिमत मकान व इसके अलावा ग्राम असलेमपुर में 272 वगर् मीटर भूिम और उस पर िनिमत 128.52 वगर् मीटर में िनिमत मकान को कु कर् िकया गया है। इसके अितिरक्त के नरा बैंक शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा के खाता सं0 85882200111735 तथा के नरा बैंक शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा के खाता सं0 85882200111740 तथा पंजाब नेशनल बैंक शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा के खाता सं० 6513000100023296 को भी कु कर् िकया गया है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् ग्राम प्रधान है और के नरा बैंक शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा के खाता सं० 85882200111735 तथा खाता सं० 85882200111740, जो िक प्राईमरी स्कू ल के िमड-डे मील से संबंिधत हैं और जो धनरािश उन खातों में जमा है और जो खाते में लेनदेन हुआ है, वह सरकार द्वारा िकया गया है, िजससे प्रत्यावेदनकतार् का कोई संबंध नहीं है और पंजाब नेशनल बैंक, शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा का खाता उसका व्यिक्तगत खाता है और उसमे धनरािश मात्र 189.20 /- रू० जमा है। इसके अलावा जो मुख्य संपित्त प्रत्यावेदनकतार् के नाम दशार्ई गई है, वह उसंकी भूिम ग्राम फौलादपुर व असलेमपुर में है और उपरोक्त दोनों भूिमयों पर ही उसके द्वारा आवासीय िनमार्ण कराया गया है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा ग्राम असलेमपुर में अलीजान पुत्र हसरत से िदनांक 20.09.2006 को उक्त भूिम कय की गई, िजसका इकरारनामा बतौर बयनामा कराया गया, िजसे नोटरी द्वारा पेरेजीकृ त कराया गया और उपरोक्त भूिम उसके द्वारा मु० 1,00,000/- रू० में कय की गई थी और उसी पर उसके द्वारा लगभग 10-15 वषर् पूवर् िनमार्ण कराया िसगा था और इस संबंध में पत्रावली पर लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग, मुरादाबाद की आख्या -उपलब्ध है और उसमें जो िनमार्ण प्रदिशत िकया गया है, वह 10 वषर् पूवर् का दशार्या जन गया है। इसके अितिरक्त ग्राम फौलादपुर में उसका जो मकान िनिमत िदखाया गया है वह लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग, मुरादाबाद की मूल्यांकन आख्या के अनुसार 20 वषर् पुराना िनमार्ण दिशत िकया गया है और उपरोक्त भूिम उसके द्वारा िदनांक 08.11.2004 में मु0 75,000/- रू0 में कय की गई थी। जो भी संपित्त उसके द्वारा अिजत की गई है, वह उसके द्वारा अपनी िविधक आय से अिजत की गई है। उसके िवरूद्ध कोई भी आपरािधक वाद वषर् 2022 से पूवर् पंजीकृ त नहीं हुआ है और उस पर मात्र अ०सं० 442/2022 पंजीकृ त है और वह भी झूठे तथ्यों के आधार पर लगाया गया है। उसके द्वारा अितिधक रूप से खनन का कोई व्यापार नहीं िकया जा रहा था। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की अनेकों िविध व्यवस्थाओं में स्पष्ट रूप से यह अवधािरत िकया गया है िक कु कर् शुदा संपित्त का 11 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 अिजत िकये जाने का संबंध प्रत्यावेदनकतार्/अिभयुक्त के द्वारा अिविधक कृ त्यों से अिजत आय से होने के तथ्य को िसद्ध करने का भार अिभयोजन पर है और उसके िवरूद्ध अिभयोजन द्वारा कोई भी आपरािधक इितहास प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया गया है। इसके अलावा प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा यह भी कथन िकया गया है िक उसके पास दादा इलाही ढाई बीघा जमीन है, िजस पर वह खेती करता है तथा गांव के अन्य काश्तकारों की लगभग 45 बीघा जमीन पर बटाई पर कृ िष कायर् करता है, िजससे लगभग एक वषर् में उसे लगभग 3,00,000/- से 4,00,000/- की आय हो जाती है। वह गांव के मेंहदी हसन पुत्र नन्हे, मौ० यूसूफ पुत्र शौकत, नौशे अली पुत्र रज्जाक, सैदनूर पुत्र चुन्नी, सरबर हुसैन पुत्र अब्दुल रज्जाक आिद की लगभग 20-22 वषोर्ं से खेती की जमीन बंटाई पर लेता है तथा वषर् के अंत में लागत के अितिरक्त अिजत लाभ को आधा-आधा बांट लेते हैं। वह अपने ग्राम फौलादपुर में खतौनी सं० 99, रकबई 0.143 हे0 व ग्राम असलेमपुर में लगभग 272 वगर् मीटर व ग्राम फौलादपुर में 434 वगर् मीटर भूिम का जिरये इकरारनामा व बयनामा मािलक व कािबज है। उसने उक्त संपित्तयों / भूिम पर लोन भी िलया हुआ है। वह आयकरदाता है, िजसके संबंध में उसने वषर् 2019 से 2023 तक के अपने आयकर िरटनर् की प्रित दािखल की है। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा िदये गये प्रत्यावेदन एवं प्रस्तुत िकये गये दस्तावेजों तथा पत्रावली पर पूवर् से उपलब्ध दस्तावेजों का पिरशीलन िकये िबना प्रश्नगत सम्पित्तयों को कु कर् करने का आदेश पािरत िकया गया है तथा प्रत्यावेदनकतार् का प्रश्नगत संपित्तयों को िनमु र्क्त कराने हेतु िदये गये प्रत्यावेदन िबना कारण बताये अपने आदेश िदनांिकत - 14.03.2023 के द्वारा िनरस्त कर िदया गया है। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा प्रितपािदत िविध व्यवस्थाओं का ध्यान न रखते हुए उक्त आदेश पािरत िकया गया है, जो िक अपास्त िकये जाने योग्य है तथा प्रश्नगत सम्पित्तयों को कु कीर् से अवमुक्त िकये जाने योग्य हैं।" Emphasis Added

11. Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 16 of the Act, which are relevant, are as under: "3 (a) On receipt of the reference under sub-section (1) or an application under sub-section (2), the Court shall fix a date for inquiry and give notices thereof to the person making the application under sub-section (2) or, as the case may be, to the person making the representation under Section 15 and to the State Government, and also to any other person whose interest appears to be involved in the case. (b) On the date so fixed on any subsequent date to which the inquiry may be adjourned, the Court shall hear the parties, receive evidence produced by them, take such further evidence as it considers necessary, decide whether the property was acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act and shall pass such order 12 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 under Section 17 as may be just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. (5) In any proceedings under this Section the burden of proving that the property in question or any part thereof was not acquired by gangster as a result of the commission of any offence triable under this Act, shall be on the person claiming the property, anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Evidence Act notwithstanding."

12. The Court while dealing with the reference made under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act has to see whether the property was acquired by a gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act and has to enter into the question and record his own finding on the basis of the inquiry held by him under section 16 of the Act. Sub-section (3)(b) of Section 16 of the Act provides that the Court shall hear the parties, receive evidence produced by them and take such further evidence as it considers necessary to decide whether the property was acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under the Act and shall pass such order under Section 17 as may be just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. In the present case the appellant has shown before the Court concerned the source of money whereby he purchased the aforesaid vehicle. The District Magistrate concerned has also not considered the fact that the appellant was not a gangster and rejected his representation.

13. It is to be noted here that the sole ground for rejection of the representation, by the District Magistrate, Moradabad, filed by the opposite party is that as per police report a proposal for filing an appeal against the order dated 21.12.2023 has been sent, thus, during pendency of the appeal attached property cannot be released in favour of the opposite party. When in fact no such appeal has been filed before the this Court by that time and the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 160 days, thus the ground taken by the District Magistrate, Moradabad in it's order dated 6.9.2024 was not available with him at the time of passing of the said order and the ground taken in the order dated 6.9.2024 was only on the basis of presumption relying on a police report, which is nonest. Considering this aspect of the matter a coordinate Bench of this Court adopting a deterrent theory of law passed order dated 5.8.2025 asking the 13 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 District Magistrate, Moradabad to file his personal affidavit to justify the non compliance of the order dated 21.12.2023 and show cause as to why the owner of the property be not compensated by awarding damages recoverable from the salary of the officer responsible for non compliance of the order dated 21.12.2023. Even, thereafter, the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 5.8.2025 has not been complied with by District Magistrate, Moradabad and again time was prayed by learned A.G.A. on 19.8.2025 and again ten day's time was granted to the District Magistrate, Moradabad. Thereafter, on 20.8.2025 personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Moradabad has been filed wherein no proper explanation has been given by the District Magistrate, Moradabad.

14. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that the vehicle, which was attached, was acquired by the opposite party with the aid of his earning from legal resources and it was not a result of commission of any offence triable under the Act and the order dated 6.9.2024 rejecting the representation of the opposite party by placing reliance on a wrong/misconceived police report is nonest in law. It also appears that the appellant was having enough source of income from which he had procured the property in question. The order dated 6.9.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad rejecting the representation of the opposite party (which was filed pursuant to order dated 21.12.2023) is in a mechanical manner without application of mind and is arbitrary.

15. In view of the discussions made above, in my view the appeal has no merit, and is accordingly, dismissed. The order of the District Magistrate, Moradabad dated

6.9.2024 rejecting the representation of the opposite party has been passed without application of mind and thus, is nonest in law. The properties in question be released from attachment forthwith.

16. Copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court / District Magistrate concerned for necessary compliance. November 21, 2025 Dev (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

such finding of the trial Court is bad in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court at the time of disposal of appeal has not applied its judicial mind and has illegally recorded the finding that the properties attached in a wrong manner on the basis of police report and failed to appropriate the fact that aforesaid properties were purchased by illegal source of income/ill money and said fact came to the knowledge during the course of investigation in Case Crime No.442 of 2022 alongwith the fact that accused opposite party is a habitual offender and by their illegal and by their illegal means after commission of crime he has earned the money and gaining undue financial benefits. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has not considered the order dated 14.3.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad under Section 14(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as well as the final order of the District Magistrate, Jalaun dated 14.10.2022 in right perspective. The learned trial Court has also failed to consider the fact about income of the opposite party to purchase their immovable property by borrowing the loan from a bank while they have not produced any authentic documentary evidence in this regard. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has disbelieved the testimonies due to minor contradictions, which is bad in law. Thus, the impugned order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party submits that the opposite party is a dully elected Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchyat-Raghunathpur, Block-Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. He was elected as Gram Pradhan in Panchyat election of the year 2021, reference in this regard is made to certificate issued by the Election Officer, Moradabad dated 3.5.2021, a copy of which is annexed as annexure-CA-1 to the short counter affidavit. It is further submitted that on 08.11.2004 the opposite party purchased 1/3 area of Plot No.66 area 0.077 Hectare, Plot No.79 area 0.040 Hectare and Plot No.71 area 0.312 Hectare total 3 plots total area 0.429 Hectare, village Fauladpur, Tehsil- Thakurdwara, District: Moradabad through registered sale deed by one Jaswant Singh Son of Ramphal Singh. Thereafter, his name was mutated in revenue record. In this regard, the copy of sale deed dated 08.11.2004 and Khatauni of 1427-1432 Fasli are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA-2 to the short counter affidavit. The opposite party has earlier purchased a residential plot of area 434 Sq.Mt. in village Fauladpur, Tehsil-Thakurdwara on 23.07.1999 from one 3 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 Amin Son of Mukhtyar Husain. He has also purchased a plot of area 272 Sq.Mt. in village Asalempur on 20.09.2006 from one Ajizan Son of Hasrat. In this regard, the agreement to sale dated 23.07.1999 and 20.09.2006 are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure No.CA-3 to the short counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that it will be relevant to mention here that on the aforesaid plots of the opposite party, he has taken loan from the bank and the same are mortgaged property of the bank. The opposite party being Gram Pradhan has to jointly operate Account No.85882200111735 in Canara Bank which is the account of Primary School Mid Day Raghunathpur and Account No. 85882000111740 in CANARA BANK which is the account of Primary School Mid Day Fauladpur. In this regard, the copy of statement of account of Account No.85882200111735 and Account No. 85882000111740 are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure No.CA-4 to the short counter affidavit. There is another account No.6513000100023296 of Punjab National Bank, Thakurdwara in which Rs.189.92/- is left. The father of the opposite party resides at village Gopiwala and owns a Tractor John Deer having Registration No.UP 21 CE 9229 and the brother of opposite party namely Mohd. Hamid who also resides at Gopiwala also owns a Tractor Arjun having registration No.UP21AX 4493. Both, the father and brother of the Opposite party was earning from the said tractors for their livelihood and for their family also. In this regard, the copy of registration certificates of the aforesaid both the tractors are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA-5 to the short counter affidavit. The son of the opposite party i.e. the deponent purchased TATA Tipper (Dumper) having registration No. UP21CT5728 (TATA SIGNA 4825 TK BS VI TIPPER) to carry building materials particularly mud/sand from one place to another. He has purchased the aforesaid Tipper after taking loan of Rs.47,21,978.00/- from IndusInd Bank on

30.03.2022 and the margin money of about Rs.9,78,022.00/- was invested by him that too after taking some loan from is near relatives. In this regard, the copy of loan documents and registration documents of Tipper purchased by son of opposite party are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure No.CA-6 to the short counter affidavit. On 14.09.2022 an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.442 of 2022, Under Sections 147, 341, 352, 332, 504, 353 IPC and 21(4) Mines & Mineral Act, PS- Thakurdwara, Dsitrict: Moradabad was lodged by Sri Ashok Kumar, Mines Officer, 4 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 Moradabad against the opposite party and other named and unknown persons in which during investigation Sections 384, 395 IPC and 3 Public Property Prevention of Damages Act were added. The copy of the F.I.R. of Case Crime No.442 of 2022 dated

14.09.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA-7 to the short counter affidavit. On the strength of lodging of aforesaid Case Crime No.442 of 2022 against the opposite party and others, the concerned police has implicated the opposite party and 18 others in Gangster Act U/s-3(1). In this regard, the copy of Gang Chart dated 11.10.2022 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA-8 to the short affidavit. On the basis of aforesaid F.I.R. and Gangster Act imposed on the opposite party, the above mentioned moveable and immovable properties have been seized considering it to be the properties of the opposite party U/s-14(1) of Gangsters Act vide order dated 14.10.2022 (Annexure-2 of Criminal Appeal) passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2022, the opposite party moved an application dated 28.12.2022 before District Magistrate, Moradabad for release of his aforesaid seized moveable and immoveable property ventilating his grievance and narrating the fact that said tractors are not his own nor the TATA TIPPER was purchased by him and two accounts are of Primary Schools regarding MID DAY Scheme. The application of the opposite party was illegally rejected vide order dated 14.03.2023 (Annexure-3 of criminal appeal) by the District Magistrate, Moradabad and the matter was referred to the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad U/s 16(1) of U.P. Gangsters Act where Criminal Misc. Case No.207/2023 (Raheesh @ Raeesh Pradhan Vs. State of U.P.) was registered and notice was issued to be opposite party. After receipt of notice, the opposite party through his counsel submitted his representation/objection against the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad. The learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad by a detailed order dated 21.12.2023 released the bank accounts and immoveable properties including plots and house of the opposite party but illegally did not release Tractors and Tata Tipper, which are in the name of his father, brother and son. The learned court has directed the District Magistrate, Moradabad to give possession of released property to the opposite party after expiry of limitation period of appeal (30 days) within 7 days. This judgment and order dated 21.12.2023 is under 5 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 challenge in the aforesaid appeal. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated

21.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad the State Government has filed above mentioned defective Criminal Appeal on 01.08.2024 i.e. after long delay of about 8 months. Pursuant to judgment and order dated 21.12.2023 the opposite party moved representation before District Magistrate, Moradabad and prayed for release of his immoveable properties in compliance of aforesaid judgment and order dated

21.12.2023, which has been rejected vide order dated 06.09.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad. The copy of the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.9 to the short counter affidavit. The District Magistrate, Moradabad, in fact, has committed contempt of court's order dated 21.12.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad by not releasing the seized properties after stipulated period, as after 37 days of order dated

21.12.2023 the District Magistrate was duty bound to release the aforesaid seized properties in favour of the opposite party. The action of the District Administration is illegal, arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law the said authority has acted by exceeding his jurisdiction by acting as appellate authority.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

6. Before examining the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is appropriate to first consider the provisions of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, which read as under: "2(b). "Gang" means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities, namely- ....... 6 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 ....... 2(c). "gangster" means a member or leader or organiser of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities;"

7. On a conjoint reading of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act, it appears that for taking action under Section 14 of the Act against a person, there must be material for objective determination of the District Magistrate that he either, as a member, leader or organiser of a gang acquired any property as a result of commission of any offence under the Act. There must be nexus between his criminal act and the property acquired by him. His mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to attach his property, as it is necessary to find out whether his acquisition of property was a result of commission of any offence enumerated in the Act being a gangster. Further, one might have committed several offences but if the property is acquired by him with the aid of his earning from legal source, no action under Section 14 of the Act can be taken against him.

8. Section 14 of the Act reads as under : "14. Attachment of property.- (1) If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether movable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any Court. (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. 7 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 (4) The District Magistrate may provide police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property." This Court had an opportunity to go through the various judgments of this Court viz. S mt. Rashida Bano vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 6 ADJ 575, Badan Singh @ Baddo vs. State of U.P. and others, (2001)10 AHC CK 0033, Smt. Maina Devi vs. State of U.P., 2013 9 ADJ 542, Waseem Khan vs. State of U.P., 2023 LawSuit (All)751 and Criminal Appeal No. 2130 of 2021 (Abrar vs. State of U.P. and another), decided on 23.10.2021 propounding legal dictums on the subject and a co- joint reading of the same leads to draw a conclusion that Section 14 clearly provides that the order of the District Magistrate attaching one's property, must be based on reason and not arbitrary. The expression "reason to believe" appearing therein has some intent and purpose. It puts fetter in the arbitrary exercise of power of attachment to deny a person of his right to any property. Law requires that there must be reason to believe that the property sought to be attached, has been acquired by a ''gangster' as a result of commission of any offence under the Act. The expression "reason to believe" contemplates an objective determination based on intelligent care and deliberation involving judicial review, as distinguished from purely subjective consideration. There must be rational and intelligible nexus between ''reason' and ''belief'. The word 'believe' is a much stronger word than 'suspect' and it involves the necessity of showing that the circumstances were such that a prudent man must have felt convinced in his mind that what has been alleged, is true. The expression "reason to believe" is also defined in Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the said definition, a person is said to have ''reason to believe' a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise. "Reason to believe" is not the same thing as the ''suspicion' or ''doubt' and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. "Reason to believe" is a higher level of state of mind. The Court, of course, cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons examined by the authority in coming to the believe, but the Court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing in the matter in regard to which it is required to entertain the belief.

9. To add further, it is to be kept in mind that initial burden is always upon the State to 8 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 satisfy the District Magistrate with necessary materials that the appellant being a gangster acquired the properties as a result of commission of any offence mentioned in Section 2 of the Act. So far as the present case is concerned, this has not been done by the State. It is also to be kept in mind that the opposite party / aggrieved is not liable to establish the source of income to acquire the property in question. It is no requirement of law that the aggrieved person seeking release of properties from attachment must prove the source of income for acquisition thereof. There must be a nexus between the commission of any offence and the acquisition of the property. It reflects from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate concerned that he being influenced by the report of the police, hastened to exercise power under the Act and attached the property in question in absence of any material to show that the said property was acquired as a result of commission of any offence triable under the Act.

10. At this juncture it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of order impugned dated 21.12.2023 which is as under :- "प्रत्यावेदनकतार् रहीश उफर् रईस प्रधान द्वारा न्यायालय में दािखल िकये गये प्रत्यावेदन पत्र में कथन िकया गया है िक आदेश िदनांिकत 14.03.2023 एक पक्षीय व कानून के िवरूद्ध है। उसने मेहनत से काम कर आय अिजत की है। वह आयकर दाता है, िजसके िरटर्न को प्रित व पैन काडर् व आधार काडर् की प्रित संलग्न है। उसका कोई आपरािधक इितहास नहीं है। वह वतर्मान में ग्राम प्रधान है। पुिलस द्वारा िजलािधकारी, मुरादाबाद को गलत व भ्रामक िरपोटर् प्रेिषत की गई है, िजसके आधार पर प्रत्यावेदनकतार् की संपित्त िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा अटैच कर ली गई है। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा कु कर् की गई संपित्त के संबंध में जो िरपोटर् प्रेिषत की गई है, वह िबना िकसी सही जांच व पड़ताल के पुिलस / प्रशासन द्वारा प्रेिषत की गई है। यह िक धारा 14 (1) गैंगस्टर एक्ट के अनुसार- "If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether moveable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any court." उपरोक्त पिरभाषा से स्पष्ट है िक आदेश िवरुद्ध कानून, िनयम व तथ्यों के है। अ0सं0 442/2023, 147,341,352,332,504,353 भा०दं०सं० व 21 (4) खान व खिनज अिध० पुिलस द्वारा जानबूझकर उसे परेशान करने की नीयत से 9 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 फजीर् िलखाया गया है। अिभयोजन की ओर से उसके िवरूद्ध कोई भी ऐसा ठोस साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया गया है और न बताया गया है, जो उसको िकसी संगिठत िगरोह का संचालन / सहस्य सािबत करता हो और न ही िकसी िगरोह का नाम बताया गया है। उसका अपना आय का साधन है और उसी से अिजत आय से वह आयकर अदा करता है। किथत के नरा बैंक, शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा का बचत खाता सं० 85882200111735 उसके नाम नहीं है और न ही पंजाब नेशनल बैंक, शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा का खाता सं० 6513000100023290 है। आदेश में िबदु सं० 1 में ग्राम फौलादपुर में खाता खतौनी सं० 99 क्षेत्रफल 0.143 हे० व ग्राम असलेमपुर में आवासीय भूिम क्षेत्रफल 272 वगर् मीटर व ग्राम फौलादपुर में आवासीय भूिम क्षेत्रफल 434 वगर् मीटर उसके नाम है, िजस पर वह अरसा दराज से कािबज है, इनका बयनामा व इकरारनामा उसके पास है, जो संलग्न है। उपरोक्त संपित्त काफी पुरानी होने के कारण पूवर् में होने के कारण पूवर् में कम कीमत की थी। अब समय के धारा अनुसार कीमतें काफी बढ़ गई हैं। उपरोक्त संपित्तयों / भूिम की खतौनी उसके नाम है और उन पर उसने लोन भी िलया हुआ है। ट्रैक्टर जॉन िडयर पंजीकरण सं० यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0-9229 उसके नाम नहीं है और न ही उसने इसको अपने िपता सद्दीक के नाम कय िकया है। वह ग्राम फौलादपुर का िनवासी है और उसके िपता ग्राम गोपीवाला में रहते हैं। ट्रैक्टर पंजीकरण सं० यू०पी० 21 ए०ए० 1493 उसके भाई मौ० हािमद, िनवासी गोपीवाला का है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् ने उसको कय नहीं िकया है। टाटा डम्पर पंजीकरण सं० यू०पी० 21 सी0टी0 5728 उसने अपने पुत्र दािनश के नाम से कय नहीं िकया है, बिल्क दािनश ने स्वयं कय िकया है और इस पर उसने लोन भी िलया हुआ है। उसने आज तक कोई अवैध खनन का कायर् नहीं िकया है और न ही ऐसा कोई कृ त्य िकया है, िजससे जनता में भय उत्पन्न हो। यिद इस तरह का कोई भी कृ त्य उसके द्वारा िकया गया होता, तो अवश्य ही संबंिधत व्यिक्त द्वारा िशकायत स्पष्ट रूप से अिधकारी के सम्मुख की जाती है और उसका पूणर् िववरण पुिलस िवभाग में मौजूद रहता है। उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है िक उसके िवरूद्ध की गई कायर्वाही पूणर्तः फजीर् है और उसकी साफ सुथरी छिव को धूिमल करने का प्रयास िकया गया है। अतः उसका प्रत्योवदन स्वीकार कर िजला मिजस्ट्रेट का आदेश िदनांक 14.03.2023 को िनरस्त करते हुए उसकी कु कर् शुदा संपित्त को उसके पक्ष में अवमुक्त िकये जाने की याचना की गई है। अिभयोजन की तरफ से िवद्वान िदशेष लोक अिभयोजक द्वारा यह तकर् प्रस्तुत िकया गया है िक अिभयुक्त रहीश द्वारा अवैध खनन के कारोबार से उपरोक्त अवैध संपित्त अिजत की गई है। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा अपने आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 के द्वारा अिभयुक्त रहीश द्वारा अिजत की गई अवैध संपित्तयों को कु कर् िकया गया और उपरोक्त आदेश को िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा अपने आदेश िदनांिकत 14.03.2023 के द्वारा पुष्ट िकया गया। अिभयुक्त रहीश द्वारा 10 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 अिविधक रूप से अिजत आय से प्रश्नगत संपित्त का कय व िनमार्ण िकया गया है और अपनी अिविधक आय से अपने सगे संबंिधयों के नाम पर प्रश्नगत संपित्तयां कय की गई हैं। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा कु कशुदा सम्पित्तयों के अजर्न के िविधक स्रोत के सम्बन्ध में कोई भी संतोषजनक साक्ष्य िजला मिजस्ट्रेट. मुरादाबाद के समक्ष तथा दौरान जांच इस न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत नहीं िकये गये है, जबिक गैंगस्टर एक्ट की धारा-16 (5) यह प्रावधािनत करती है िक यह सािबत करन का भार िक प्रश्नगत सम्पित्त या उसका भाग िकसी िगरोहबन्द द्वारा इस अिधिनयम के अधीन िवचारणीय िकसी अपराध को कािरत करने के पिरणामस्वरूप अिजत नहीं िकया गया है, सम्पित्त पर दावा करने वाले व्यिक्त पर होगा। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा पािरत आदेश िदनांिकत-14.03.2023 पूणर् रूप से िविधसम्मत है, िजसमें िकसी भी प्रकार हस्तक्षेप करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। अिभयोजन द्वारा प्रस्तुत उपरोक्त तकों के जवाब में प्रत्यावेदनकतार् रहीश की तरफ से िवद्वान अिधवक्ता द्वारा तकर् प्रस्तुत िकया गया है िक प्रश्नगत कु कर् शुदा संपित्तयां उसके द्वारा अपने वैध आय स्त्रोतों से अिजत की गई हैं। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्व ारा अपने आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 के माध्यम से ग्राम फौलादपुर में खाता खतौनी सं० 99 क्षेत्रफल 0.143 हे० तथा ग्राम फौलादपुर में ही अिभयुक्त के नाम आवासीय भूिम, िजसका क्षेत्रफल 434 वगर् मीटर है, अपनी आवासीय भूिम में 128.52 वगर् मीटर कवडर् एिरया में िनिमत मकान व इसके अलावा ग्राम असलेमपुर में 272 वगर् मीटर भूिम और उस पर िनिमत 128.52 वगर् मीटर में िनिमत मकान को कु कर् िकया गया है। इसके अितिरक्त के नरा बैंक शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा के खाता सं0 85882200111735 तथा के नरा बैंक शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा के खाता सं0 85882200111740 तथा पंजाब नेशनल बैंक शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा के खाता सं० 6513000100023296 को भी कु कर् िकया गया है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् ग्राम प्रधान है और के नरा बैंक शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा के खाता सं० 85882200111735 तथा खाता सं० 85882200111740, जो िक प्राईमरी स्कू ल के िमड-डे मील से संबंिधत हैं और जो धनरािश उन खातों में जमा है और जो खाते में लेनदेन हुआ है, वह सरकार द्वारा िकया गया है, िजससे प्रत्यावेदनकतार् का कोई संबंध नहीं है और पंजाब नेशनल बैंक, शाखा ठाकु रद्वारा का खाता उसका व्यिक्तगत खाता है और उसमे धनरािश मात्र 189.20 /- रू० जमा है। इसके अलावा जो मुख्य संपित्त प्रत्यावेदनकतार् के नाम दशार्ई गई है, वह उसंकी भूिम ग्राम फौलादपुर व असलेमपुर में है और उपरोक्त दोनों भूिमयों पर ही उसके द्वारा आवासीय िनमार्ण कराया गया है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा ग्राम असलेमपुर में अलीजान पुत्र हसरत से िदनांक 20.09.2006 को उक्त भूिम कय की गई, िजसका इकरारनामा बतौर बयनामा कराया गया, िजसे नोटरी द्वारा पेरेजीकृ त कराया गया और उपरोक्त भूिम उसके द्वारा मु० 1,00,000/- रू० में कय की गई थी और उसी पर उसके द्वारा लगभग 10-15 वषर् पूवर् िनमार्ण कराया िसगा था और इस संबंध में पत्रावली पर लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग, मुरादाबाद की आख्या -उपलब्ध है और उसमें जो िनमार्ण प्रदिशत िकया गया है, वह 10 वषर् पूवर् का दशार्या जन गया है। इसके अितिरक्त ग्राम फौलादपुर में उसका जो मकान िनिमत िदखाया गया है वह लोक िनमार्ण िवभाग, मुरादाबाद की मूल्यांकन आख्या के अनुसार 20 वषर् पुराना िनमार्ण दिशत िकया गया है और उपरोक्त भूिम उसके द्वारा िदनांक 08.11.2004 में मु0 75,000/- रू0 में कय की गई थी। जो भी संपित्त उसके द्वारा अिजत की गई है, वह उसके द्वारा अपनी िविधक आय से अिजत की गई है। उसके िवरूद्ध कोई भी आपरािधक वाद वषर् 2022 से पूवर् पंजीकृ त नहीं हुआ है और उस पर मात्र अ०सं० 442/2022 पंजीकृ त है और वह भी झूठे तथ्यों के आधार पर लगाया गया है। उसके द्वारा अितिधक रूप से खनन का कोई व्यापार नहीं िकया जा रहा था। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की अनेकों िविध व्यवस्थाओं में स्पष्ट रूप से यह अवधािरत िकया गया है िक कु कर् शुदा संपित्त का 11 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 अिजत िकये जाने का संबंध प्रत्यावेदनकतार्/अिभयुक्त के द्वारा अिविधक कृ त्यों से अिजत आय से होने के तथ्य को िसद्ध करने का भार अिभयोजन पर है और उसके िवरूद्ध अिभयोजन द्वारा कोई भी आपरािधक इितहास प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया गया है। इसके अलावा प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा यह भी कथन िकया गया है िक उसके पास दादा इलाही ढाई बीघा जमीन है, िजस पर वह खेती करता है तथा गांव के अन्य काश्तकारों की लगभग 45 बीघा जमीन पर बटाई पर कृ िष कायर् करता है, िजससे लगभग एक वषर् में उसे लगभग 3,00,000/- से 4,00,000/- की आय हो जाती है। वह गांव के मेंहदी हसन पुत्र नन्हे, मौ० यूसूफ पुत्र शौकत, नौशे अली पुत्र रज्जाक, सैदनूर पुत्र चुन्नी, सरबर हुसैन पुत्र अब्दुल रज्जाक आिद की लगभग 20-22 वषोर्ं से खेती की जमीन बंटाई पर लेता है तथा वषर् के अंत में लागत के अितिरक्त अिजत लाभ को आधा-आधा बांट लेते हैं। वह अपने ग्राम फौलादपुर में खतौनी सं० 99, रकबई 0.143 हे0 व ग्राम असलेमपुर में लगभग 272 वगर् मीटर व ग्राम फौलादपुर में 434 वगर् मीटर भूिम का जिरये इकरारनामा व बयनामा मािलक व कािबज है। उसने उक्त संपित्तयों / भूिम पर लोन भी िलया हुआ है। वह आयकरदाता है, िजसके संबंध में उसने वषर् 2019 से 2023 तक के अपने आयकर िरटनर् की प्रित दािखल की है। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा िदये गये प्रत्यावेदन एवं प्रस्तुत िकये गये दस्तावेजों तथा पत्रावली पर पूवर् से उपलब्ध दस्तावेजों का पिरशीलन िकये िबना प्रश्नगत सम्पित्तयों को कु कर् करने का आदेश पािरत िकया गया है तथा प्रत्यावेदनकतार् का प्रश्नगत संपित्तयों को िनमु र्क्त कराने हेतु िदये गये प्रत्यावेदन िबना कारण बताये अपने आदेश िदनांिकत - 14.03.2023 के द्वारा िनरस्त कर िदया गया है। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद द्वारा प्रितपािदत िविध व्यवस्थाओं का ध्यान न रखते हुए उक्त आदेश पािरत िकया गया है, जो िक अपास्त िकये जाने योग्य है तथा प्रश्नगत सम्पित्तयों को कु कीर् से अवमुक्त िकये जाने योग्य हैं।" Emphasis Added

11. Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 16 of the Act, which are relevant, are as under: "3 (a) On receipt of the reference under sub-section (1) or an application under sub-section (2), the Court shall fix a date for inquiry and give notices thereof to the person making the application under sub-section (2) or, as the case may be, to the person making the representation under Section 15 and to the State Government, and also to any other person whose interest appears to be involved in the case. (b) On the date so fixed on any subsequent date to which the inquiry may be adjourned, the Court shall hear the parties, receive evidence produced by them, take such further evidence as it considers necessary, decide whether the property was acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act and shall pass such order 12 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 under Section 17 as may be just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. (5) In any proceedings under this Section the burden of proving that the property in question or any part thereof was not acquired by gangster as a result of the commission of any offence triable under this Act, shall be on the person claiming the property, anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Evidence Act notwithstanding."

12. The Court while dealing with the reference made under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act has to see whether the property was acquired by a gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act and has to enter into the question and record his own finding on the basis of the inquiry held by him under section 16 of the Act. Sub-section (3)(b) of Section 16 of the Act provides that the Court shall hear the parties, receive evidence produced by them and take such further evidence as it considers necessary to decide whether the property was acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under the Act and shall pass such order under Section 17 as may be just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. In the present case the appellant has shown before the Court concerned the source of money whereby he purchased the aforesaid vehicle. The District Magistrate concerned has also not considered the fact that the appellant was not a gangster and rejected his representation.

13. It is to be noted here that the sole ground for rejection of the representation, by the District Magistrate, Moradabad, filed by the opposite party is that as per police report a proposal for filing an appeal against the order dated 21.12.2023 has been sent, thus, during pendency of the appeal attached property cannot be released in favour of the opposite party. When in fact no such appeal has been filed before the this Court by that time and the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 160 days, thus the ground taken by the District Magistrate, Moradabad in it's order dated 6.9.2024 was not available with him at the time of passing of the said order and the ground taken in the order dated 6.9.2024 was only on the basis of presumption relying on a police report, which is nonest. Considering this aspect of the matter a coordinate Bench of this Court adopting a deterrent theory of law passed order dated 5.8.2025 asking the 13 CRLA No. 8853 of 2024 District Magistrate, Moradabad to file his personal affidavit to justify the non compliance of the order dated 21.12.2023 and show cause as to why the owner of the property be not compensated by awarding damages recoverable from the salary of the officer responsible for non compliance of the order dated 21.12.2023. Even, thereafter, the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 5.8.2025 has not been complied with by District Magistrate, Moradabad and again time was prayed by learned A.G.A. on 19.8.2025 and again ten day's time was granted to the District Magistrate, Moradabad. Thereafter, on 20.8.2025 personal affidavit of the District Magistrate, Moradabad has been filed wherein no proper explanation has been given by the District Magistrate, Moradabad.

14. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the view that the vehicle, which was attached, was acquired by the opposite party with the aid of his earning from legal resources and it was not a result of commission of any offence triable under the Act and the order dated 6.9.2024 rejecting the representation of the opposite party by placing reliance on a wrong/misconceived police report is nonest in law. It also appears that the appellant was having enough source of income from which he had procured the property in question. The order dated 6.9.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad rejecting the representation of the opposite party (which was filed pursuant to order dated 21.12.2023) is in a mechanical manner without application of mind and is arbitrary.

15. In view of the discussions made above, in my view the appeal has no merit, and is accordingly, dismissed. The order of the District Magistrate, Moradabad dated

6.9.2024 rejecting the representation of the opposite party has been passed without application of mind and thus, is nonest in law. The properties in question be released from attachment forthwith.

16. Copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court / District Magistrate concerned for necessary compliance. November 21, 2025 Dev (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)