Court Is Not Empowered To Act As Post Office Or Mouthpiece Of State Or District Magistrate: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court remarked that the court is not empowered to act as a post office or mouthpiece of the State or the District Magistrate.
The Lucknow Bench remarked thus in a criminal appeal preferred under Section 18 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social (Prevention of Activities) Act, 1986, in short, the Gangster Act, against the orders of the Trial Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed, “The object behind providing the power of judicial scrutiny under Section 16 of the Code is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the District Magistrate in depriving a person of his property and to restore the rule of law, therefore a heavy duty lies upon the Court to hold a formal enquiry to find out the truth with regard to the question, whether the property was acquired by or as a result of the commission of an offence triable under the Act. The order to be passed under Section 17 of the Act must disclose reasons and the evidence in support of finding of the Court. The Court is not empowered to act as a post office or mouthpiece of the State or the District Magistrate.”
Advocate Satendra Nath Rai represented the appellant while Government Advocate V.K. Singh and AGA Ashok Kumar Singh represented the respondent.
In this case, an action was started on report of the Inspector In-charge which was approved by the Circle Officer in 2022. The accused along with gang leader and his associates committed crimes under Chapters 16, 17, and 22 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to obtain financial, material, and infrastructural benefits for their associates. The appellant along with his associates had acquired the property amounting to Rs. 1,31,59,600/- by committing crime under Section 14(1) of the Gangster Act. The Trial Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous case filed by the appellant and being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard said, “If a person has no criminal history during the period the property was acquired by him, how the property can be held to be a property acquired by or as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act is a pivotal question which has to be answered by the Court. Besides, the aforesaid question, the other important question to be considered by the Court is whether the property which was acquired prior to the registration of the case against the accused under the Act or prior to the registration of the first case of the Gangster chart can be attached by District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act.”
The Court further noted that the District Magistrate may appoint an Administrator of any property attached, to administer such property in the best interest thereof but there must be 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 commission of an offence, triable under the Act but the District Magistrate in its order has not recorded his satisfaction having reason to believe with regard to the property attached that it was acquired by appellant as a result of commission of an offence triable under Gangster Act, even though while deciding the reference under Section 16 of the Act, the Trial Court does not appreciate the evidence and in a mechanical manner passed the impugned order relying upon the observations made by the District Magistrate which is illegal and an unjustified approach.
“… this Court is of the view that the properties, which were attached, were acquired by the appellant with the aid of his earning from legal resources and from his ancestors, and not by commission of any offence, triable under the Act, as it is settled law that the properties being made subject matter of attachment under Section 14 of the Act must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence triable under the Act and also the impugned orders were not passed on reasons which are relevant and material”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the District Magistrate to release all the attached properties of the appellant immediately.
Cause Title- Babu Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:45291)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Satendra Nath Rai, Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui, and Mohd. Arshad Khan.
Respondent: Government Advocate V.K. Singh and AGA Ashok Kumar Singh
