Saddik v. State of U.P.) whereby learned trial Court had allowed the aforesaid Misc. Case f

been given either before the District Magistrate or before the trial Court and thus, the income of opposite party from valid source has not been proved. The learned trial Court has escaped attention from that fact that the burden of proof is on the opposite party as per Section 16(5) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and thus, the opposite party failed to discharge the said burden. The opposite party has not filed any valid income tax returns or any statement of account, duly certified which could be taken as evidence before the Court, therefore, release of the vehicle only on the ground that they have procured the vehicle from loan taken by the bank is wholly illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that Section 4(b) of the Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act raises a presumption in favour of the State with regard to the acquisition of the property by the opposite party that such property has been acquired by them by their activities as a gantster i.e. by commission of an offence punishable under the Act, unless and until the contrary is proved by cogent evidence by the opposite party, but the court below, without considering the same, has passed the impugned order, which is illegal and the same may be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party submits that the opposite party is a farmer and doing agriculture work on his fields. He owns agricultural land in his village in his own name and for doing agricultural work, the opposite party had old tractor, which was not performing well, so on 27.12.2019 he has purchased a new Tractor (John Deere) No.UP21CE-9229 after selling his old tractor to the company and remaining amount was paid from his agricultural income, reference in this regard is made to Khatauni of 1429- 3 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 1434 fasli and copy of registration of tractor of the opposite party are filed as Annexure No.SCA-01. It is further submitted that the opposite party is residing separately from his other family members in his village Gopiwala, P.S. and Tehsil-Thakurwdwara, District Moradabad, in this regard copy of parivar register ration card of the opposite party is collectively filed as Annexure No.SCA-02. It is further submitted that at present the opposite party no.2 is aged about 80 years suffering from various old age ailments his date of birth recorded in the Adhar Card is 1.1.1945, a copy of Adhar Card is filed as Annexure No.SCA-3. It is further submitted that 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, District: Moradabad was lodged by Sri Ashok Kumar, Mines Officer, Moradabad against the son of opposite party and other named and unknown persons in which during investigation sections 384, 395 IPC and Section 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 annexed as Annexure No. SCA- 4. It is relevant to mention here that the opposite party has not been named in the aforesaid F.I.R. nor his name has come during investigation of the aforesaid case crime. It is further submitted that on the strength of lodging of aforesaid Case Crime No.442 of 2022 against the son of opposite party and others, the concerned police has implicated the son of opposite party and 18 others in Gangster Act U/s-3(1). Moreover, the opposite party is also not named in the Gangster Act and his name does not find place in Gang Chart. In this regard, the copy of Gang Chart dated

11.10.2022 is annexed as Annexure No.SCA-05 to this affidavit. It is further submitted that on the basis of aforesaid F.I.R. and Gangster Act imposed on the son of opposite party, the John Deere Tractor No. UP-21CE-9229 which he has purchased for agriculture purposes after giving his old tractor to the company and remaining amount was to be paid in easy installment, has been seized along with other movable and immovable properties of the son 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. 4 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 It is further submitted that, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2022, the opposite party moved an application before District Magistrate, Moradabad for release of his John Deere Tractor No. UP-21CE-9229 which was illegally rejected vide order dated 30.01.2023 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.97/2023 (Saddik Vs. State of U.P.) was registered and notice was issued to be opposite party. That after receiving the notice, the opposite party through his counsel submitted his representation/objection against the order dated 30.01.2023 and 14.10.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad before the trial court. That the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad by a detailed order dated 15.02.2024 directed the District Magistrate, Moradabad to release the John Deere Tractor No. UP- 21CE-9229 in favour of the opposite party after expiry of limitation period of appeal (30 days) within 7 days. This judgment and order dated

15.02.2024 is under challenge in this appeal. That in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 15.02.2024 the opposite party moved representation before District Magistrate, Moradabad and prayed for release of his John Deere Tractor No. UP-21CE-9229 in compliance of aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.02.2024. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.02.2024 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

25.10.2024 i.e. after long delay of more than 8 months. Even, thereafter, learned District Magistrate, Moradabad had rejected the representation of the opposite party vide order dated 29.05.2024 stating therein that as per report of S.H.O. PS-Thakurdwara, Moradabad against order dated 15.02.2024 appeal proposal dated 02.05.2024 has been sent. He has further stated that against order, dated 15.02.2024 appeal has been filed and as such, it is not appropriate to release John Deere Tractor No. UP-21CE- 9229. The certified copy of the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by District Magistrate, 5 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 Moradabad is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.SCA-06 to this supplementary counter affidavit. That the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad is illegal, incorrect, arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the defective criminal appeal against the order dated 15.02.2024 has been filed before this Hon'ble Court on

25.10.2024 but in the order dated 29.05.2024 the learned District Magistrate, Moradabad has stated that the appeal has been filed. That the District Magistrate, Moradabad, in fact, has committed contempt of court's order dated 15.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad by not releasing the John Deere Tractor No. UP-21CE-9229 of the opposite party after stipulated period and he has also passed incorrect order dated 29.05.2024 as an appellate court for which he has no right, as after 37 days of order dated 15.02.2024 the District Magistrate was duty bound to release the aforesaid vehicle in favour of the opposite party. That the District Magistrate, Moradabad who is highest administrative authority of the District has passed a false order as an appellate authority incorrectly stating that against order dated 15.02.2024 criminal appeal has been filed so the said vehicle i.e. John Deere Tractor No. UP- 21CE-9229 cannot be released, but the criminal appeal. That the vehicle of the opposite has been lying in concerned police station for more than two years, which he had purchased on 27.12.2019 itself but due to seizer of said vehicle the opposite party is able to the take any benefit from the said vehicle. That the opposite party has no concern with the business of his sons nor he is named in FIR or Gangster Act, but even though his own vehicle has illegally been seized. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the District Magistrate, Moradabad may be directed to release the John Deere Tractor No.UP-21CE-9229.

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 6 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 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- ....... ....... 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 7 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 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. (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. Smt. 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 8 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 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 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 9 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 order impugned dated 15.2.2024 which is as under :- "प्रभारी िनरीक्षक, थाना-िडलारी, सुनील कु मार द्वारा प्रेिषत उपरोक्त आख्या को पुिलस अधीक्षक, ग्रामीण, मुरादाबाद द्वारा अग्रसािरत करते हुए अिभयुक्तगण की सम्पित्त को कु कर् िकये जाने हेतु अनुसंशा पत्र विरष्ठ पुिलस अधीक्षक, मुरादाबाद गद द्वारा िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद को िदनांक-13.10.2022 को प्रेिषत िकया गया। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा पुिलस आख्या से संतुष्ट होते हुए अिभयुक्तगण की उपरोक्त सम्पित्तयों को कु कर् िकये जाने का आदेश िदनांक- 14.10.2022 को पािरत िकया गया। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद के कु कीर् आदेश िदनांिकत-14.10.2022 के िवरूद्ध प्रत्यावेदनकतार् सद्दीक द्वारा प्रत्यावेदन ट्रैक्टर जान िडयर रिज० नं० यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0 9229 को कु कीर् से अवमुक्त िकये जाने हेतु िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद के समक्ष प्रस्तुत िकया गया। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा कु कर् की गयी संपित्तयों को अवमुक्त िकये जाने हेतु पयार्प्त आधार न पाते हुए सद्दीक के प्रत्यावेदन को अपने आदेश िदनांिकत-30.01.2023 के द्वारा िनरस्त करते हुए सम्पूणर् प्रकरण को अग्रेत्तर कायर्वाही हेतु इस न्यायालय को संदिभत िकया गया। इस न्यायालय द्वारा िवपक्षी को नोिटस भेजे गये। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् सद्दीक द्वारा अपने अिधवक्ता के माध्यम से उपिस्थत होकर िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद के आदेश िदनांिकत 30.01.2023 व कु कीर् आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 के िवरूद्ध प्रत्यावेदन इस न्यायालय में दािखल िकया गया। अिभयोजन द्वारा उपरोक्त आपित्तयों के जवाब में कोई िलिखत प्रितआपित्त दािखल नहीं की गयी और न ही कोई दस्तावेजीय साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत िकया गया, बिल्क पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों के आधार पर मामले को िनस्तािरत करने हेतु प्राथर्ना की गयी। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् सद्दीक द्वारा न्यायालय में दािखल िकये गये प्रत्यावेदन पत्र में कथन िकया गया है िक आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 व 30.01.2023 िविध िवरूद्ध है। अवर न्यायालय द्वारा अपने कानूनी मिस्तष्क का प्रयोग नहीं िकया गया है। आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 उसे िबना सुने ही एकपक्षीय रूप से पािरत िकया गया है और इसी आदेश की तजर् पर आदेश िदनांिकत 30.01.2023 पािरत िकया गया है। उक्त्त प्रकरण में जो साक्षी प्रस्तुत िकये गये हैं, उन्होंने भी उक्त ट्रैक्टर को प्रत्यावेदनकतार् का ही बताया है और रहीश का ट्रैक्टर सािबत करने में असफल रहे हैं। उक्त मामले में रहीश के िवरूद्ध प्रशासिनक अिधकािरयों एवं थाना पुिलस द्वारा िदनांक 13.10.2022 को ही आनन-फानन में िरपोटर् प्रस्तुत की गई है। प्रत्योवदनकतार् का पिरवार व रहीश का पिरवार अलग–अलग रहते हैं तथा प्रत्यावेदनकतार् के पास खेती की भूिम है 10 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 . जो उसके नाम दजर् है और उक्त कृ िष भूिम में खेती करने के िलए उसके द्वारा स्वयं का ट्रैक्टर जॉन िडयर हरे रंग का स्वयं खरीदा था तथा उक्त ट्रैक्टर का रहीश से कोई वास्ता नहीं है। अपनी भूिम के अलावा बटाई की भूिम व ठेके पर भूिम लेकर कृ िष कायर् करता है। उक्त आदेश में उसके ट्रैक्टर को भी सीज कर िदया है, जो थाना ठाकु रद्वारा में खड़ा है, िजसका पंजीकरण सं० यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0 9229 है। पुिलस ने ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया है, िजससे यह सािबत हो सके िक उक्त ट्रैक्टर रहीश द्वारा खरीदा गया हो, जबिक सत्यता यह है िक रहीश करीब 40 वषोर्ं से ग्राम संभवाला छोड़कर ग्राम फौलादपुर में अपने पिरवार के साथ िनवास करता िवथा रहीश फौलादपुर का वतर्मान में ग्राम प्रधान है। भारतीय साक्ष्य अिध० यह इंिगत करती के िकसी भी दोष को िसद्ध करने के िलए उसके पिरप्रेक्ष्य में उस व्यिक्त के िवरुद्ध िजस पर आरोप लगाये गये हैं, साक्ष्य का होना आवश्यक हैं िबना िकसी साक्ष्य के चाहूं कोई भी आरोप हो, आरोिपत व्यिक्त को दिण्डत नहीं िकया जा सकता है। प्रस्तुते मामले में भी ऐसा ही तथ्य सामने हैं, िक प्रश्नगत आदेश में िनदोर्ष व्यिक्त की संपित्त को सीज कर िदया गया है। वह उक्त ट्रैक्टर का पंजीकृ त स्वामी है, िजसे थाना पुिलस उसके घ ार से िदनांक 10.10.2022 को जबरन खींचकर ले गई थी। वह थाने भी गया था, उससे आर०सी० िदखाने को कहा तो उसने पुिलस को आर०सी० िदखा दी थी, परंतु बाद में उसे पता चला िक उसके ट्रैक्टर को रहीश की र् कर िदया गया है, जो िविध िवरूद्ध है। उपरोक्त जॉन िडयर संपित्त में सिम्मिलत करके कु कु ट्रैक्टर उसकी िनजी संपित्त है, िजसे उसकी सुपुदर्गी में िदया जाना न्यायिहत मे है। अतः उसका प्रत्योवदन स्वीकार कर िजला मिजस्ट्रेट का आदेश िदनांक 14.10.2022 व 30.01.2023 को िनरस्त करते हुए कु कर् शुदा संपित्त को उसके पक्ष में अवमुक्त िकये जाने की याचना की गई है। अिभयोजन की तरफ से िवद्वान िवशेष लोक अिभयोजक द्वारा यह तकर् प्रस्तुत िकया गया है िक अिभयुक्त रहीश द्वारा अवैध खनन के कारोबार से उपरोक्त अवैध संपित्तयां 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 उपरोक्त्त आदेश को िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा अपने आदेश िदनांिकत 30.01.2023 के द्वारा पुष्ट िकया गया। अिभयुक्त रहीश द्वारा 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 और अपने िपता के नाम उपरोक्त जॉन िडयर ट्रैक्टर यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0 9229 कय िकया है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्व ारा कु कर् शुदा जॉन िडयर ट्रैक्टर 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 हैं, जबिक गैंगस्टर एक्ट की धारा-16 (5) यह प्रावधािनत करती है िक 11 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 यह सािबत करने 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-30.01.2023 पूणर् रूप से िविधसम्मत है, िजसमें िकसी भी प्रकार हस्तक्षेप करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। अिभयोजन द्वारा प्रस्तुत उपरोक्त तकोर्ं के जवाब में प्रत्यावेदनकतार् सद्दीक की तरफ से िवद्वान अिधवक्ता द्वारा तकर् प्रस्तुत िकया गया है िक प्रश्नगत कु कर् शुदा जॉन िडयर ट्रैक्टर यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0 9229 उसके द्वारा अपने वैध आय स्त्रोतों से अिजत है। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा अपने आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 के माध्यम से िडयर ट्रैक्टर यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0 9229 को कु कर् िकया गया है। उक्त्त पातालित िकया गया ट्रैक्टर द्वारा िविधक रूप से अिजत आय से कय िकया गया है और इसके संबंध में उसके द्वारा संपूणर् आय का िववरण दािखल िकया गया है और िजला अिजस्ट्रेट के समक्ष भी उसके द्वारा संपूणर् िववरण प्रस्तुत िकया गया था, परंतु उपरोक्त * जनपटो को हनके द्वारा िवचारण में नहीं िलया गया और सरसरी रूप से आदेश पािरत िकया गया है। उसके द्वारा उपरोक्त ट्रैक्टर माचर् 2020 में कय िकया गया था, िजसकी कीमत लगभग दस लाख रूपये थे। उसने अपना पुराना ट्रैक्टर कं पनी को दे िदया था, िजसकी कीमत कं पनी द्वारा चार लाख रूपये लगाई थी और शेष धनरािश उसने िकश्तों में कं पनी को अदा की थी, जो उसकी कृ िष आय थी। अिभयुक्त रईस और उसका पिरवार अलग-अलग रहता है। अिभयुक्त रईस ग्राम फौलादपुर में रहता है और वह ग्राम गोपीवाला में रहता है। उसकी पैतृक कृ िष भूिम है , िजस पर वह खेती करता है और इसके अितिरक्त, वह ठेके व बटाई पर लेकर भी खेती करता है, िजससे उसे प्रितवषर् लगभग दो से ढाई लाख रूपये की आय हो जाती है। उसने उपरोक्त ट्रैक्टर कृ िष कायर् हेतू कय िकया था। वह इस प्रकरण में अिभयुक्त नहीं है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्व ारा अपने कथन के समथर्न में िविध व्यवस्था राजवीर िसह त्यागी बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य, 2019 (1) जे०आई०सी० 535 का उल्लेख िकया और यह कथन िकया िक अिभयोजन को कु कर् की गई संपित्त और उसके आपरािधक कृ त्य के मध्य संबंध स्थािपत करना होगा और साथ ही पूणर् रूप से इसका संपूणर् भार अिभयोजन पर है िक वह िसद्ध करे िक गैंगस्टर द्वारा जो संपित्त अिजत की गई है, वह आपरािधक कृ त्यों द्वारा अिजत आय से की गई है। प्रश्नगत वाहन को कय िकये जाने हेतू जो धन उसके द्वारा िदया गया वह पुराने ट्रैक्टर को िवकय कर तथा अपने कृ िष कायोर्ं से अिजत आय से अदा िकया गया है। ऐसी िस्थित में, माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा प्रितपािदत िसद्धातों के अनुसार उन आपरािधक कृ त्यों को अिभयोजन को उल्लेख व िसद्ध करना होगा िक कु कर् की गई संपित्त उन आपरािधक कृ त्यों से अिजत आय से कय की गई है और यिद 12 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 अिभयोजन इस तथ्य को िसद्ध करने में असफल रहता है तो ऐसी िस्थित में, न्यायालय को उस संपित्त को अवमुक्त करना होगा। इसके उपरांत भी प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा आय के वह स्रोत भी प्रदिशत िकये गये हैं, िजसके द्वारा प्रश्नगत ट्रैक्टर कय िकया गया है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद के समक्ष अपनी आय के स्रोत के समबन्ध में िवस्तृत प्रत्यावेदन िदया गया था तथा साथ में अिभलेखीय साक्ष्य भी दािखल िकये गये थे एवं िलिखत बहस में अपनी आय के स्रोतों का िवस्तृत ब्योरा िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद के समक्ष िदया गया था, िकन्तु िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा िदये गये प्रत्यावेदन एवं प्रस्तुत िकये गये दस्तावेजों या 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 प्रश्नपत संपित्त को िनमु र्क्त कराने हेतु िदये गये प्रत्यावेदन को िबना कारण बताये अपने आदेश िदनांिकत - 30.01.2023 के द्वारा िनरस्त कर िदया गया है। िजला मिजस्टेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा नपन 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 under Section 17 as may be just and necessary in the circumstances of the 13 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 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 initially placing reliance on the police report dated 13.10.2022, the District Magistrate, Moradabad has passed the order of attachment of the vehicle in question, and thereafter, referred the matter to the Court of learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge who vide order dated 15.2.2024 has released the vehicle in question in favour of the opposite party. Pursuant to the order dated 15.2.2024 the opposite party has moved a representation before the District Magistrate, Moradabad and again the District Magistrate, Moradabad placing reliance on the same police report dated 13.10.2022 has rejected the representation of the opposite party, which is non-est, as the same has already been dealt with 14 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 by the trial Court in the order dated 15.2.2024.

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 29.5.2024 rejecting the representation of the appellant by acting as an appellant Court is nonest in law. It is apparently clear that only by revisiting the police report, the District Magistrate has acted as an appellate Court. It also appears that the appellant was having enough source of income from which he had procured the vehicle. The order dated 29.5.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad rejecting the representation of the opposite party (which was filed pursuant to order dated 15.2.2024) 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 29.5.2024 rejecting the representation of the opposite party has been passed exceeding the jurisdiction and is non-est in law. The vehicle i.e. Tractor John Deere U.P.21-CE-9229 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.)

been given either before the District Magistrate or before the trial Court and thus, the income of opposite party from valid source has not been proved. The learned trial Court has escaped attention from that fact that the burden of proof is on the opposite party as per Section 16(5) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and thus, the opposite party failed to discharge the said burden. The opposite party has not filed any valid income tax returns or any statement of account, duly certified which could be taken as evidence before the Court, therefore, release of the vehicle only on the ground that they have procured the vehicle from loan taken by the bank is wholly illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that Section 4(b) of the Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act raises a presumption in favour of the State with regard to the acquisition of the property by the opposite party that such property has been acquired by them by their activities as a gantster i.e. by commission of an offence punishable under the Act, unless and until the contrary is proved by cogent evidence by the opposite party, but the court below, without considering the same, has passed the impugned order, which is illegal and the same may be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party submits that the opposite party is a farmer and doing agriculture work on his fields. He owns agricultural land in his village in his own name and for doing agricultural work, the opposite party had old tractor, which was not performing well, so on 27.12.2019 he has purchased a new Tractor (John Deere) No.UP21CE-9229 after selling his old tractor to the company and remaining amount was paid from his agricultural income, reference in this regard is made to Khatauni of 1429- 3 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 1434 fasli and copy of registration of tractor of the opposite party are filed as Annexure No.SCA-01. It is further submitted that the opposite party is residing separately from his other family members in his village Gopiwala, P.S. and Tehsil-Thakurwdwara, District Moradabad, in this regard copy of parivar register ration card of the opposite party is collectively filed as Annexure No.SCA-02. It is further submitted that at present the opposite party no.2 is aged about 80 years suffering from various old age ailments his date of birth recorded in the Adhar Card is 1.1.1945, a copy of Adhar Card is filed as Annexure No.SCA-3. It is further submitted that 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, District: Moradabad was lodged by Sri Ashok Kumar, Mines Officer, Moradabad against the son of opposite party and other named and unknown persons in which during investigation sections 384, 395 IPC and Section 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 annexed as Annexure No. SCA- 4. It is relevant to mention here that the opposite party has not been named in the aforesaid F.I.R. nor his name has come during investigation of the aforesaid case crime. It is further submitted that on the strength of lodging of aforesaid Case Crime No.442 of 2022 against the son of opposite party and others, the concerned police has implicated the son of opposite party and 18 others in Gangster Act U/s-3(1). Moreover, the opposite party is also not named in the Gangster Act and his name does not find place in Gang Chart. In this regard, the copy of Gang Chart dated

11.10.2022 is annexed as Annexure No.SCA-05 to this affidavit. It is further submitted that on the basis of aforesaid F.I.R. and Gangster Act imposed on the son of opposite party, the John Deere Tractor No. UP-21CE-9229 which he has purchased for agriculture purposes after giving his old tractor to the company and remaining amount was to be paid in easy installment, has been seized along with other movable and immovable properties of the son 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. 4 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 It is further submitted that, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2022, the opposite party moved an application before District Magistrate, Moradabad for release of his John Deere Tractor No. UP-21CE-9229 which was illegally rejected vide order dated 30.01.2023 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.97/2023 (Saddik Vs. State of U.P.) was registered and notice was issued to be opposite party. That after receiving the notice, the opposite party through his counsel submitted his representation/objection against the order dated 30.01.2023 and 14.10.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad before the trial court. That the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad by a detailed order dated 15.02.2024 directed the District Magistrate, Moradabad to release the John Deere Tractor No. UP- 21CE-9229 in favour of the opposite party after expiry of limitation period of appeal (30 days) within 7 days. This judgment and order dated

15.02.2024 is under challenge in this appeal. That in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 15.02.2024 the opposite party moved representation before District Magistrate, Moradabad and prayed for release of his John Deere Tractor No. UP-21CE-9229 in compliance of aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.02.2024. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 15.02.2024 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

25.10.2024 i.e. after long delay of more than 8 months. Even, thereafter, learned District Magistrate, Moradabad had rejected the representation of the opposite party vide order dated 29.05.2024 stating therein that as per report of S.H.O. PS-Thakurdwara, Moradabad against order dated 15.02.2024 appeal proposal dated 02.05.2024 has been sent. He has further stated that against order, dated 15.02.2024 appeal has been filed and as such, it is not appropriate to release John Deere Tractor No. UP-21CE- 9229. The certified copy of the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by District Magistrate, 5 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 Moradabad is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.SCA-06 to this supplementary counter affidavit. That the order dated 29.05.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad is illegal, incorrect, arbitrary and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as the defective criminal appeal against the order dated 15.02.2024 has been filed before this Hon'ble Court on

25.10.2024 but in the order dated 29.05.2024 the learned District Magistrate, Moradabad has stated that the appeal has been filed. That the District Magistrate, Moradabad, in fact, has committed contempt of court's order dated 15.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad by not releasing the John Deere Tractor No. UP-21CE-9229 of the opposite party after stipulated period and he has also passed incorrect order dated 29.05.2024 as an appellate court for which he has no right, as after 37 days of order dated 15.02.2024 the District Magistrate was duty bound to release the aforesaid vehicle in favour of the opposite party. That the District Magistrate, Moradabad who is highest administrative authority of the District has passed a false order as an appellate authority incorrectly stating that against order dated 15.02.2024 criminal appeal has been filed so the said vehicle i.e. John Deere Tractor No. UP- 21CE-9229 cannot be released, but the criminal appeal. That the vehicle of the opposite has been lying in concerned police station for more than two years, which he had purchased on 27.12.2019 itself but due to seizer of said vehicle the opposite party is able to the take any benefit from the said vehicle. That the opposite party has no concern with the business of his sons nor he is named in FIR or Gangster Act, but even though his own vehicle has illegally been seized. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice that the District Magistrate, Moradabad may be directed to release the John Deere Tractor No.UP-21CE-9229.

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 6 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 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- ....... ....... 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 7 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 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. (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. Smt. 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 8 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 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 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 9 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 order impugned dated 15.2.2024 which is as under :- "प्रभारी िनरीक्षक, थाना-िडलारी, सुनील कु मार द्वारा प्रेिषत उपरोक्त आख्या को पुिलस अधीक्षक, ग्रामीण, मुरादाबाद द्वारा अग्रसािरत करते हुए अिभयुक्तगण की सम्पित्त को कु कर् िकये जाने हेतु अनुसंशा पत्र विरष्ठ पुिलस अधीक्षक, मुरादाबाद गद द्वारा िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद को िदनांक-13.10.2022 को प्रेिषत िकया गया। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा पुिलस आख्या से संतुष्ट होते हुए अिभयुक्तगण की उपरोक्त सम्पित्तयों को कु कर् िकये जाने का आदेश िदनांक- 14.10.2022 को पािरत िकया गया। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद के कु कीर् आदेश िदनांिकत-14.10.2022 के िवरूद्ध प्रत्यावेदनकतार् सद्दीक द्वारा प्रत्यावेदन ट्रैक्टर जान िडयर रिज० नं० यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0 9229 को कु कीर् से अवमुक्त िकये जाने हेतु िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद के समक्ष प्रस्तुत िकया गया। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा कु कर् की गयी संपित्तयों को अवमुक्त िकये जाने हेतु पयार्प्त आधार न पाते हुए सद्दीक के प्रत्यावेदन को अपने आदेश िदनांिकत-30.01.2023 के द्वारा िनरस्त करते हुए सम्पूणर् प्रकरण को अग्रेत्तर कायर्वाही हेतु इस न्यायालय को संदिभत िकया गया। इस न्यायालय द्वारा िवपक्षी को नोिटस भेजे गये। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् सद्दीक द्वारा अपने अिधवक्ता के माध्यम से उपिस्थत होकर िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद के आदेश िदनांिकत 30.01.2023 व कु कीर् आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 के िवरूद्ध प्रत्यावेदन इस न्यायालय में दािखल िकया गया। अिभयोजन द्वारा उपरोक्त आपित्तयों के जवाब में कोई िलिखत प्रितआपित्त दािखल नहीं की गयी और न ही कोई दस्तावेजीय साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत िकया गया, बिल्क पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों के आधार पर मामले को िनस्तािरत करने हेतु प्राथर्ना की गयी। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् सद्दीक द्वारा न्यायालय में दािखल िकये गये प्रत्यावेदन पत्र में कथन िकया गया है िक आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 व 30.01.2023 िविध िवरूद्ध है। अवर न्यायालय द्वारा अपने कानूनी मिस्तष्क का प्रयोग नहीं िकया गया है। आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 उसे िबना सुने ही एकपक्षीय रूप से पािरत िकया गया है और इसी आदेश की तजर् पर आदेश िदनांिकत 30.01.2023 पािरत िकया गया है। उक्त्त प्रकरण में जो साक्षी प्रस्तुत िकये गये हैं, उन्होंने भी उक्त ट्रैक्टर को प्रत्यावेदनकतार् का ही बताया है और रहीश का ट्रैक्टर सािबत करने में असफल रहे हैं। उक्त मामले में रहीश के िवरूद्ध प्रशासिनक अिधकािरयों एवं थाना पुिलस द्वारा िदनांक 13.10.2022 को ही आनन-फानन में िरपोटर् प्रस्तुत की गई है। प्रत्योवदनकतार् का पिरवार व रहीश का पिरवार अलग–अलग रहते हैं तथा प्रत्यावेदनकतार् के पास खेती की भूिम है 10 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 . जो उसके नाम दजर् है और उक्त कृ िष भूिम में खेती करने के िलए उसके द्वारा स्वयं का ट्रैक्टर जॉन िडयर हरे रंग का स्वयं खरीदा था तथा उक्त ट्रैक्टर का रहीश से कोई वास्ता नहीं है। अपनी भूिम के अलावा बटाई की भूिम व ठेके पर भूिम लेकर कृ िष कायर् करता है। उक्त आदेश में उसके ट्रैक्टर को भी सीज कर िदया है, जो थाना ठाकु रद्वारा में खड़ा है, िजसका पंजीकरण सं० यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0 9229 है। पुिलस ने ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया है, िजससे यह सािबत हो सके िक उक्त ट्रैक्टर रहीश द्वारा खरीदा गया हो, जबिक सत्यता यह है िक रहीश करीब 40 वषोर्ं से ग्राम संभवाला छोड़कर ग्राम फौलादपुर में अपने पिरवार के साथ िनवास करता िवथा रहीश फौलादपुर का वतर्मान में ग्राम प्रधान है। भारतीय साक्ष्य अिध० यह इंिगत करती के िकसी भी दोष को िसद्ध करने के िलए उसके पिरप्रेक्ष्य में उस व्यिक्त के िवरुद्ध िजस पर आरोप लगाये गये हैं, साक्ष्य का होना आवश्यक हैं िबना िकसी साक्ष्य के चाहूं कोई भी आरोप हो, आरोिपत व्यिक्त को दिण्डत नहीं िकया जा सकता है। प्रस्तुते मामले में भी ऐसा ही तथ्य सामने हैं, िक प्रश्नगत आदेश में िनदोर्ष व्यिक्त की संपित्त को सीज कर िदया गया है। वह उक्त ट्रैक्टर का पंजीकृ त स्वामी है, िजसे थाना पुिलस उसके घ ार से िदनांक 10.10.2022 को जबरन खींचकर ले गई थी। वह थाने भी गया था, उससे आर०सी० िदखाने को कहा तो उसने पुिलस को आर०सी० िदखा दी थी, परंतु बाद में उसे पता चला िक उसके ट्रैक्टर को रहीश की र् कर िदया गया है, जो िविध िवरूद्ध है। उपरोक्त जॉन िडयर संपित्त में सिम्मिलत करके कु कु ट्रैक्टर उसकी िनजी संपित्त है, िजसे उसकी सुपुदर्गी में िदया जाना न्यायिहत मे है। अतः उसका प्रत्योवदन स्वीकार कर िजला मिजस्ट्रेट का आदेश िदनांक 14.10.2022 व 30.01.2023 को िनरस्त करते हुए कु कर् शुदा संपित्त को उसके पक्ष में अवमुक्त िकये जाने की याचना की गई है। अिभयोजन की तरफ से िवद्वान िवशेष लोक अिभयोजक द्वारा यह तकर् प्रस्तुत िकया गया है िक अिभयुक्त रहीश द्वारा अवैध खनन के कारोबार से उपरोक्त अवैध संपित्तयां 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 उपरोक्त्त आदेश को िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा अपने आदेश िदनांिकत 30.01.2023 के द्वारा पुष्ट िकया गया। अिभयुक्त रहीश द्वारा 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 और अपने िपता के नाम उपरोक्त जॉन िडयर ट्रैक्टर यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0 9229 कय िकया है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्व ारा कु कर् शुदा जॉन िडयर ट्रैक्टर 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 हैं, जबिक गैंगस्टर एक्ट की धारा-16 (5) यह प्रावधािनत करती है िक 11 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 यह सािबत करने 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-30.01.2023 पूणर् रूप से िविधसम्मत है, िजसमें िकसी भी प्रकार हस्तक्षेप करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। अिभयोजन द्वारा प्रस्तुत उपरोक्त तकोर्ं के जवाब में प्रत्यावेदनकतार् सद्दीक की तरफ से िवद्वान अिधवक्ता द्वारा तकर् प्रस्तुत िकया गया है िक प्रश्नगत कु कर् शुदा जॉन िडयर ट्रैक्टर यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0 9229 उसके द्वारा अपने वैध आय स्त्रोतों से अिजत है। िजला मिजस्ट्रेट द्वारा अपने आदेश िदनांिकत 14.10.2022 के माध्यम से िडयर ट्रैक्टर यू०पी० 21 सी0ई0 9229 को कु कर् िकया गया है। उक्त्त पातालित िकया गया ट्रैक्टर द्वारा िविधक रूप से अिजत आय से कय िकया गया है और इसके संबंध में उसके द्वारा संपूणर् आय का िववरण दािखल िकया गया है और िजला अिजस्ट्रेट के समक्ष भी उसके द्वारा संपूणर् िववरण प्रस्तुत िकया गया था, परंतु उपरोक्त * जनपटो को हनके द्वारा िवचारण में नहीं िलया गया और सरसरी रूप से आदेश पािरत िकया गया है। उसके द्वारा उपरोक्त ट्रैक्टर माचर् 2020 में कय िकया गया था, िजसकी कीमत लगभग दस लाख रूपये थे। उसने अपना पुराना ट्रैक्टर कं पनी को दे िदया था, िजसकी कीमत कं पनी द्वारा चार लाख रूपये लगाई थी और शेष धनरािश उसने िकश्तों में कं पनी को अदा की थी, जो उसकी कृ िष आय थी। अिभयुक्त रईस और उसका पिरवार अलग-अलग रहता है। अिभयुक्त रईस ग्राम फौलादपुर में रहता है और वह ग्राम गोपीवाला में रहता है। उसकी पैतृक कृ िष भूिम है , िजस पर वह खेती करता है और इसके अितिरक्त, वह ठेके व बटाई पर लेकर भी खेती करता है, िजससे उसे प्रितवषर् लगभग दो से ढाई लाख रूपये की आय हो जाती है। उसने उपरोक्त ट्रैक्टर कृ िष कायर् हेतू कय िकया था। वह इस प्रकरण में अिभयुक्त नहीं है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्व ारा अपने कथन के समथर्न में िविध व्यवस्था राजवीर िसह त्यागी बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य, 2019 (1) जे०आई०सी० 535 का उल्लेख िकया और यह कथन िकया िक अिभयोजन को कु कर् की गई संपित्त और उसके आपरािधक कृ त्य के मध्य संबंध स्थािपत करना होगा और साथ ही पूणर् रूप से इसका संपूणर् भार अिभयोजन पर है िक वह िसद्ध करे िक गैंगस्टर द्वारा जो संपित्त अिजत की गई है, वह आपरािधक कृ त्यों द्वारा अिजत आय से की गई है। प्रश्नगत वाहन को कय िकये जाने हेतू जो धन उसके द्वारा िदया गया वह पुराने ट्रैक्टर को िवकय कर तथा अपने कृ िष कायोर्ं से अिजत आय से अदा िकया गया है। ऐसी िस्थित में, माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा प्रितपािदत िसद्धातों के अनुसार उन आपरािधक कृ त्यों को अिभयोजन को उल्लेख व िसद्ध करना होगा िक कु कर् की गई संपित्त उन आपरािधक कृ त्यों से अिजत आय से कय की गई है और यिद 12 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 अिभयोजन इस तथ्य को िसद्ध करने में असफल रहता है तो ऐसी िस्थित में, न्यायालय को उस संपित्त को अवमुक्त करना होगा। इसके उपरांत भी प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा आय के वह स्रोत भी प्रदिशत िकये गये हैं, िजसके द्वारा प्रश्नगत ट्रैक्टर कय िकया गया है। प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद के समक्ष अपनी आय के स्रोत के समबन्ध में िवस्तृत प्रत्यावेदन िदया गया था तथा साथ में अिभलेखीय साक्ष्य भी दािखल िकये गये थे एवं िलिखत बहस में अपनी आय के स्रोतों का िवस्तृत ब्योरा िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद के समक्ष िदया गया था, िकन्तु िजला मिजस्ट्रेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा प्रत्यावेदनकतार् द्वारा िदये गये प्रत्यावेदन एवं प्रस्तुत िकये गये दस्तावेजों या 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 प्रश्नपत संपित्त को िनमु र्क्त कराने हेतु िदये गये प्रत्यावेदन को िबना कारण बताये अपने आदेश िदनांिकत - 30.01.2023 के द्वारा िनरस्त कर िदया गया है। िजला मिजस्टेट, मुरादाबाद द्वारा नपन 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 under Section 17 as may be just and necessary in the circumstances of the 13 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 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 initially placing reliance on the police report dated 13.10.2022, the District Magistrate, Moradabad has passed the order of attachment of the vehicle in question, and thereafter, referred the matter to the Court of learned Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge who vide order dated 15.2.2024 has released the vehicle in question in favour of the opposite party. Pursuant to the order dated 15.2.2024 the opposite party has moved a representation before the District Magistrate, Moradabad and again the District Magistrate, Moradabad placing reliance on the same police report dated 13.10.2022 has rejected the representation of the opposite party, which is non-est, as the same has already been dealt with 14 CRLA No. 11705 of 2024 by the trial Court in the order dated 15.2.2024.

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 29.5.2024 rejecting the representation of the appellant by acting as an appellant Court is nonest in law. It is apparently clear that only by revisiting the police report, the District Magistrate has acted as an appellate Court. It also appears that the appellant was having enough source of income from which he had procured the vehicle. The order dated 29.5.2024 passed by District Magistrate, Moradabad rejecting the representation of the opposite party (which was filed pursuant to order dated 15.2.2024) 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 29.5.2024 rejecting the representation of the opposite party has been passed exceeding the jurisdiction and is non-est in law. The vehicle i.e. Tractor John Deere U.P.21-CE-9229 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.)