Allahabad High Court
Jumma vs State Of U.P. on 6 April, 2026
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:73386
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1927 of 2025
Jumma
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Furquan Ahmad (Alvi), Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ravendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Reserved
Court No. - 90
HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred under section 18 of Uttar Pradesh Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred as Gangster Act) against judgment and order dated 06.02.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / F.T.C. No. 1 / Special Judge (Gangster Act), Baghpat in Criminal Misc. Case No. 07 of 2023 (State Vs. Jumma), under Section ? 14(1), 16 of Gangster Act, Police Station - Baghpat, District - Baghpat, whereby the application / representation of the appellant against attachment of the property, has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is against the facts and law, thus is liable to be set aside. The appellant has an old ancestral house and in the said property some reconstruction / renovation was made in the year 2020-2022. The said property is in area of 40 square yards. The said property as well as residential premises of his brother Tauhid were attached by the District Magistrate under Section - 14 of Gangster Act vide two separate orders dated 05.05.2022 and 07.11.2022. Earlier a case under Section - 2/3 Gangster Act was registered against appellant vide Crime No. 659 of 2020. Criminal history of 4 cases was shown against the appellant but there is no evidence that the appellant has acquired any financial resources by way of committing offences as mentioned in Section - 2 of Gangster Act. It is further submitted that there is no evidence that the disputed property was constructed by the appellant from the proceeds acquired by committing criminal offence. The appellant is owner of a truck and from that business he has arranged the finance for re-construction of said residential house. It has further been submitted that in respect of similar situated matter, the residential property of brother of the appellant, namely, Tauhid was released by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Baghpat, whereas the representation of the appellant was rejected. It was submitted that there is no evidence that the residential building in question was acquired or constructed by the appellant from any such resource, which may have been obtained by committing criminal activities. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The appellant has criminal history of four cases and a case under Section - 2/3 was registered against him. The appellant has failed to show any source of income in regard to the disputed property and that all attending facts clearly show that the appellant has acquired that property from the financial resources obtained by way of commission of criminal offences. The disputed property was attached by the District Magistrate on the basis of police report, after arriving at the proper satisfaction. The objections preferred by the appellant against attachment were rejected by the District Magistrate by a reasoned order dated 07.11.2022. Similarly learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Baghpat has also considered the entire facts and evidence and the representation of the appellant was rejected. It was submitted that the case of the appellant is distinguished from the case of his brother Tauhid. Referring to the averments made in counter affidavit, it was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
6. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to quote the provisions of Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Gangster 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 Gangster Act, it appears that for taking action under Section 14 of the Gangster 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 mentioned under the Gangster Act. There must be a 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 Gangster 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. At this stage it would be apt to refer provisions of Section - 14 of the Gangster Act, which read 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.
(4) The District Magistrate may provide police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property."
9. Section - 14 of the Gangster Act 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. In this connection a reference may be made to case of 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.
10. It may also be added here 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. It is also to be kept in mind that the appellant / aggrieved is not liable to establish the source of income to acquire the properties in question. It is not 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.
11. In the instant case, perusal of record shows that police have submitted a report dated 20.04.2022, alleging that appellant Jumma is a person of criminal tendency and he has committed offences mentioned in Chapter ? 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code and that a case under Section ? 2/3 Gangster Act was registered against him vide Crime No. 659 of 2020. It was further mentioned that besides said Gangster Act case, three cases were already registered against him and that he has acquired money by indulging in criminal activities and committing criminal offences and from proceeds of the same, he has constructed a three storey residential building at his ancestral property having area of 40 square yards. It was further alleged that the valuation of said building is about Rs. 19,20,000/- and he has no known sources of income and that said building was constructed from the financial resources acquired through criminal activities. On the basis of that police report, the said property was attached under Section ? 14(1) of Gangster Act by the District Magistrate, Baghpat vide order dated 05.05.2022. The appellant has preferred objections / representation against said order of attachment. After hearing both the parties, the objections of the appellant were rejected by the District Magistrate, Baghpat, vide order dated 07.11.2022 and matter was referred to the court of Special Judge (Gangster Act), under Section ? 16(1) of Gangster Act. The appellant has also preferred his representation in the said reference. After hearing both the parties, the representation of appellant was rejected by the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Baghpat vide impugned order dated 06.02.2025 and the order of attachment passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat was upheld.
12. Perusal of record shows that before registration of case under Gangster Act against appellant, criminal history of three cases was shown against appellant. There is nothing to show that in those cases there were any such allegations that appellant has acquired money or any other financial resources by indulging in those offences. It is not disputed that the land, on which the said residential building was constructed, is ancestral property of the appellant in as much as this fact has been mentioned in the attachment order passed under Section ? 14(1) Gangster Act. Appellant has shown that he is owner of a truck and the said residential accommodation was constructed only in a plot of 40 square yards and the alleged valuation of Rs. 19,20,000/- as cost of construction is on higher side. The construction was made about several years prior to the period when said valuation was done. Case of appellant is that he has merely made some re-construction and renovation in the existing ancestral residential property from the resources acquired by appellant from income of truck and other valid source of income. It could not be disputed that appellant is owner of a truck and said residential accommodation is only in the area of 40 square yards, which was an ancestral property. No credible evidence was produced before the District Magistrate to show that appellant has constructed the residential building in question from the financial resources acquired by commission of offences. No nexus could be shown between commission of alleged offences and acquisition of the property or construction of said residential building. As stated above, initial burden is always upon the State to satisfy the District Magistrate with necessary material that appellant being a Gangster acquired the property as a result of commission of offences as mentioned in Section ? 2 of Gangster Act. In the present case, the State has utterly failed to do so. As observed earlier, appellant / aggrieved was not liable to establish the source of income to acquire the disputed property. It is not the requirement of law that aggrieved person seeking release of the property from attachment must prove source of income of acquisition thereof. It appears that the District Magistrate, being influenced by the report of police, attached the property in question, in the absence of any material to show that said property was acquired or said residential accommodation was constructed as a result of commission of any offence as mentioned in Section ? 2 of Gangster Act.
13. It was also shown that along with the attachment of disputed property of the appellant, the residential building of his brother, namely, Tauhid was also attached by order of same date on the basis of similar allegations but the said attachment order passed by the District Magistrate was set aside by the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Baghpat, whereas in similarly placed situation, the case of appellant was not accepted.
14. Be that as it may, it appears from record that the State has failed to satisfy that appellant being a gangster has acquired the property in question as a result of commission of offences as mentioned in Section ? 2 of Gangster Act. The evidence produced by appellant was not considered by the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Baghpat in correct perspective. Learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Baghpat failed to examine the matter on the anvil of the position of law. Considering entire facts and material on record, it is apparent that impugned judgment and order dated 06.02.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Baghpat as well as the orders of attachment, passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat, are not in accordance with law and the same are liable to be quashed.
15. In view of aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order dated 06.02.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act), Baghpat as well as the order of attachment dated 05.05.2022 and 07.11.2022, passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat, are hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to release the property in question of the appellant.
16. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(Raj Beer Singh,J.) April 6, 2026 S Rawat