Ganga Ram Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...

Reserved on 06.02.2026 Pronounced on 07.05.2026 Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State respondent and perused the record.

2. Pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties.3.

3. By means of the present criminal appeal, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Gangster Act, Court No. 9, Sitapur on release application filed by the appellant under Section 16(2) of the Act registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 708 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2021, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (Ganga Ram Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others), Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur, as well as the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur and to allow the appeal the seized property, i.e., tractor bearing Registration Number UP 34 BB 5229, be released in favour of the appellant.

4. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, are that, acting on the report of SHO Kotwali Nagar, Sitapur, on which recommendation was made by S.P., Sitapur, dated 06/01/2021, a Case Crime No. 03 of 2021, under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as "the Act," was registered against Mujeeb Ahmad, Haseen Ahmad alias Eklakha Ahmad, and Ahmed Hussain, son of Saifu alias Iqbal, resident of Mohalla Butsganj, Kotwali, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh. These persons are notoriously termed as "Gaddi Brothers." They have organized a gang which is engaged in extortion, illegal operation of vehicles stands dealing in intoxicating substances, land grabbing and deriving temporal, physical, economic and other advantages by anti-social activity. The gang is still active. People of the locality are afraid of this gang. They have purchased a number of tractors and goods carriers in the name of their relatives and associates to avoid police action, but in fact, these vehicles are being used by the Gaddi brothers and their family members. These purchases of vehicles are carried out at the instance of Gaddi brothers, gangsters in the name of several persons which is, in fact, Benami transaction. Gangster Mujeeb Ahmad is operating a brickkiln by his ill-gotten money in which these tractors are being used for loading and transportation of goods and bricks.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a raid was conducted at the brickkiln of Mujeeb Ahmad by police and nine tractors, which were registered in the name of Shankar Lal, Neeraj Shukla, Majeed, Azad Ali, Nazami Begum, wife of Mujeeb Ahmed, Ganga Ram Yadav, Shaukat Ali, Idrish Ali and Aslam. Shaukat Ali and Idris Ali as registered owner were seized. Out of these 9 tractors, two tractors are registered in the name of Neeraj Shukla, two tractors are registered in the name of Shankar Lal, and a goods carrier bearing registration number UP 34 T 2983 is also registered in the name of Shankar Lal. The J.C.B. is registered in the name of Aslam. A bullet motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 32 1824 and a motorcycle (Passion) bearing registration No. UP 34 AN 4281 were also seized during the raid. He had gone to take bricks to the said brickkiln and police contingent arrived and seized tractor of the appellant and other vehicles standing in the campus or brickkiln. He purchased the tractor on February 26 of 2020 by getting it financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Bank for Rs.5,75,000/-

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on report of the SHO and on recommendation of S.P. concerned, District Magistrate, Sitapur passed a detailed order was passed on 20.09.2021, whereby acting on the report of the S.H.O. Kotwali Nagar Sitapur, he rejected the application filed by the appellant, the registered owner of the said vehicle, finding it groundless. A representation of Kotak Mahindra Bank, the financier of tractor registration UP 32 BB 9890, registered in the name of Majid, was filed as the same is mortgaged with the bank since before on ground that Majid failed to pay the installment of the vehicle loan. Thus, financier has become the owner of the vehicle, and due to being parked at the police station, its utility is deteriorating, and it is probable that it would be damaged. The finance company also moved a release application of Kotak Mahindra Bank. The release application of Kotak Mahindra Bank was also rejected by the District Magistrate. Prior to this, by order dated 11.01.2021, acting under Section 14 (1) of the Act, the learned District Magistrate attached all the 10 vehicles seized from the brickkiln of Mujeeb and directed the Tehsildar, Sitapur as administrator of the same and issued notice to opposite party Mujeeb Ahmed, an accused in the case under section 2/3 of the UP Gangsters Act, to show the source of earning the movable properties.

7. By the impugned order dated 20.09.2021, the learned District Magistrate rejected as many as 12 release applications filed by the various persons with regard to 14 vehicles attached on the direction of the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate rejected the release application filed by the revisionist and other registered owners of respective vehicles, on impression that in fact, these are used by Mujeeb Ahmed in the transportation of goods and bricks, and he is the pay master of the seized vehicles. Although these are registered in the name of the concerned registered owner, Mujeeb has purchased all these vehicles for the purpose of the operation and maintenance of the brickkiln. None of the claimants could produce valid evidence by which it could be established that the said vehicles are acquired by the registered owner by legal sources.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the District Magistrate dated the 20.09.2021, the appellant aggrieved and registered owner had filed a release application under Section 16(2) before the Court of a Special Judge (Gangsters) Act at Sitapur, with the prayer to release the respective vehicles registered in their name.

9. The learned Special Judge passed the impugned order dated 10/10/2025 in exercise of power under Section 16(2) of the Act after hearing submissions of both parties observed that the applicant / objector (Ganga Ram Yadav) had stated that he had purchased tractor UP 34 BB 5229 through valid source of income. Upon a perusal of the registration certificate, this fact is proved that the applicant is its registered owner, but he failed to produce any document in respect of his income, by which the said tractor was purchased, for the reason that no sale invoice was produced. It could not be ascertained as to when and by which procedure, the vehicle was purchased, in what manner the payment was made, and what was the source of income by which the property was purchased. It is also observed by the special judge that the objector had stated in his objection that he did agricultural work and by the income derived from agriculture work, the vehicle was purchased. He had filed extracts of Khatauni in respect of his plea, but it could not show what sort of activities are being carried out on said agricultural land, nor what income is derived from it. Merely due to filing an extract of Khatauni, it cannot presumed that the said vehicle was purchased from agricultural income. The objector could also not clarify that by which source of income, the installments are being paid. He even failed to produce any loan document in respect of his contention. With the observation, learned Special Judge dismissed the release application of the revisionist and affirmed the impugned order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Sitapur, whereby the release application filed by applicant, Ganga Ram Yadav, was dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the applicant is neither a convict nor a man of criminal antecedents. He has explained the criminal history of cases attributed to him through the rejoinder affidavit. Out of which in ST No.580 of 2011 arising out of Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Criminal Amendment Act, PS Kotwali, District Sitapur in which he was acquitted by the trial court by judgment and order dated 30.06.2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Sitapur. He has also been acquitted in connected ST No. 583 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No.2450 of 2010, under Section 125(1B) Arms Act, PS Kotwali, District Sitapur, vide judgment and order dated 18.02.2025 in case Crime No. 2 of 2021, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act, the revisionist is neither named in the FIR, nor is his name shown in the gang chart. Thus, his name has been wrongly shown in the said criminal case in the report of DCRB filed along with the counter affidavit. He further submitted that accused persons in said case under UP Gangsters Act, namely, Mujeeb Ahmed and others, had also filed an application for release of their property lying in their name before the Court of Special Judge, Gangsters Act and learned court below has released movable property, a number of agricultural lands and house in favour of Mujib Ahmad vide order dated 27/08/2021. The landed property and a Scorpio Jeep lying in the name of accused Ahmad Hussain @ Chhannu, were released by orders of Special Judge dated 01/06/2022. Some property lying in the name of Rizwani, Aslam, Shabnam, Afsar, and Fatima, wife of Chhannu, were released by orders of the court below dated 05/04/2022, 01/06/2024 and 16/10/2025 respectively and a copy of the released orders were filed as Annexures 08 to 11.

11. He further submitted that the appellant is a resident of the village. He has sufficient land except Gatta Number 211 from that income, he had purchased the tractor bearing Registration No. UP 34 BB, 5229, which is not concerned with the accused persons, in the gangster case registered under Section 2/3 of the UP Gangsters Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur. The attachment of the tractor, the agricultural activity of the revisionist has got adversely affected as this is a means of livelihood for the appellant. Therefore, the attachment of the vehicle is liable to be set aside, and it is prayed that said vehicle be released in favour of the appellant.

12. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the prayer for release of the vehicle made on behalf of the appellant placing reliance on the grounds taken in the counter affidavit. He has stated that the presence of a large number of vehicles was found at one time at brickkiln of the main accused Mujib Ahmad. It shows that these vehicles were purchased by him in the name of his relatives, associates and family members by ill-gotten money, to conceal that this fact. He is the real owner and a paymaster of the vehicles. The appellant failed to produce any document in support of his version that he had purchased the vehicle by his known sources of income, and therefore, no interference is called for in the concurrent findings of both the courts below that the said vehicle was acquired by the appellant illegally and by the proceeds of crime committed by Mujib Ahmad and his brothers. He is not the real owner of the vehicle, but he is ostensible owner.

13. The appellant has filed extract of Khatauni which reveals that he is possessed of agricultural land and he has stated that he had paid the margin money and installments of loan through agricultural income.

14. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (Gangster Act) and in the orders of attachment passed by the District Magistrate. It was submitted that in fact the disputed property is 'benami' property of Gangsters Mujeeb Ahmad and his brothers. The disputed property was attached in accordance with law and the objections preferred by appellant were rejected by a detail and reasoned order. The valuation of disputed property was found Rs. 5,75,000/- and appellant has failed to explain the source of said amount. It is further submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Gangsters Act) has considered entire facts and evidence and the release application filed under Section - 16 (2) of the Gangsters Act was rejected by a reasoned order. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

15. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

16. 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;"

17. 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.

18. Section - 14 of the Gangster 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. (4) The District Magistrate may provide police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property."

19. In case of Babu Khan vs. State of U.P. 2024 Supreme (All) 999, the Court has held as under :- "20. It is now well settled that property being made subject matter of an 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. The District Magistrate has to record its satisfaction on this point. The satisfaction of the District Magistrate is not open to challenge in any appeal. Only a representation is provided for before the District Magistrate himself under Section 15 of the Act and in case he refuses to release the property on such representation, in that case the person aggrieved has to make a reference to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Act. The Court, while dealing with the reference made under sub-section (2) of Section 16 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.

If the Court comes to the conclusion that the property was not acquired by the gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act, the Court shall order for release of the property in favour of the person from whose possession it was attached. 21. 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. 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. 22. The provisions of Section 14 of the Act, referred to above, empowers the District Magistrate to attach the property acquired by the Gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under this Act. 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 this 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."

20. Similar law was laid down in case of Vaishali Kapoor and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2024 AHC 16118.

21. 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.

22. In Sarita Rai and another versus State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No.1933 of 2025, decided on 04.05.2026, this Court held that 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 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.

23. As stated earlier, burden is on State that the disputed property was acquired as a result of commission of offences mentioned in Section - 2 of Gangster Act. Considering entire facts, it appears that there is absolutely nothing to show any nexus between commission of any offence and the construction of the building / shops in question. It appears that the tractor in question was attached by the District Magistrate mainly because of the impression that the appellant is an associate of Gangsters Gaddi brothers. Except mere bald allegation made by the police in its report, there was no material to show that disputed property was constructed or acquired by the appellant from the financial resources acquired by commission of offences. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. The impugned order of attachment passed by the learned District Magistrate is not based on proper satisfaction and the same is wholly arbitrary. Similarly, learned Special Judge (Gangster Act) has miserably failed to consider the evidence produced by the appellant. The version of appellant has been rejected without assigning any proper reasoning. Considering entire facts, it is clear that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.

24. In view of aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order dated 10.10.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Court No.9 is set aside. Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellant before learned court below stands allowed accordingly. The order of attachment passed by District Magistrate with regard to tractor in question is hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to release the property in question in favour of the appellant.

25. The appeal is allowed.

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

May 7, 2026

KR