JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, for the appellant Tara Devi, Mrs. Swati Agarwal, for the appellant Punjab National Bank and A.G.A. for State of U.P. 2. These appeals have been filed from the judgment and order passed by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 7/Special Judge [U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986], Varanasi dated 17.05.2013, in Criminal Reference No. 26 of 2010, State of U.P. vs. Tara Devi and Others (arising out of order of District Magistrate dated 30.06.2010 in Case No. 21 of 2010, under Section 14 of U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Cant, district Varanasi), attaching the properties of Tara Devi and her family members under the Act. 3. On the complaint of Ramayan Singh SHO Cholapur, Lal Bahadur Singh Constable clerk, registered FIR of Case Crime No. 360 of 1999, Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against Jawahar Jaisawal, Case Crime No. 361 of 1999, Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against Shiv Bhajan @ Babloo and Case Crime No. 362 of 1999, Section 3 (1) of U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against Raghvendra @ Dabloo at P.S. Cholapur, district Varanasi, on 29.08.1999 at 20.05 hours. It has been stated in the FIR that Jawahar Jaisawal son of Kanhaiya Jaisawal, Shiv Bhajan @ Babloo and Raghvendra @ Dabloo sons of Jawahar Jaisawal, residents of village Bhawanipur (Dharsauna), PS Cholapur, district Varanasi were harden criminals and formed a gang of which Jawahar Jasawal was the gang leader. This gang is engaged in anti-social activities and are collectively committing offence under Chapter 16, 17 and 22 IPC, for their physical and pecuniary gain. They are indulged in business of selling liquor illegally and thus causing serious loss to government revenue regularly. They have created terror in general public and due to their terror no body can dare to lodge FIR or give evidence against them. Details of the offences committed by the aforementioned persons are (i) On 12.06.2009, serious fire took place in chemical factory of the accused, situated at village Dharsauna Pawarepur, due to their deliberate negligence, in which five labourers working there, were burnt. Three of them had died in hospital and two are still struggling for life. Details of the offences committed by the aforementioned persons are (i) On 12.06.2009, serious fire took place in chemical factory of the accused, situated at village Dharsauna Pawarepur, due to their deliberate negligence, in which five labourers working there, were burnt. Three of them had died in hospital and two are still struggling for life. FIR of Case Crime No. 303 of 2009, under Section 304, 308, 193, 201 IPC was lodged at the police station, in which charge sheet no. 158 dated 19.07.2009 has been submitted. Due to that incident, there is serious anguish in nearby villages. (ii) Case Crime no. 76 of 2001, under Section 60 U.P. Excise Act, PS Cholapur, (iii) Case Crime no. 159 of 2001, under Section 420, 463, 465, 467, 471 IPC, PS Cholapur, (iv) Case Crime no. 416 of 2002, under Section 411, 414, 416, 420 IPC, PS Dildar Nagar, (v) Case Crime no. 6 of 1990, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, PS Cholapur (vi) Case Crime no. 192 of 1993, under Section 279, 304-A IPC, PS Cholapur (vii) Case Crime no. 130 of 2001, under Section 120-B IPC, PS Cholapur. 4. On the complaint of Kuldeep Mishra Excise Inspector, Rampati Prasad Constable Moharrir registered FIR of Case Crime No. 130 of 2001, under Section 120-B IPC and Case Crime No. 131 of 2001, Section 3 of U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, at P.S. Cant, district Varanasi, on 22.08.2001 at 18.30 hours, against Mahendra Kumar, Shiv Bhajan (sons of the appellant Tara Devi), Vijayee, Kailash, Mataroo Lal and some unknown persons. It has been stated in the FIR that on 22.08.2001 at 12.30, a joint team of administrative officers, police officers, sales tax officers and excise officers made a raid at the premises of Shiv Diesel Dharsauna at village Pawarepur, PS Cholapur, in which from tanker, registration no. UP 62C 6507, 18000 pouch of spice liquor (each pouch of 200 ml) was recovered. This tanker was registered in the name of Vijay Kumar Jaisawal son of Jawahar Lal Jaisawal, resident of Dhaurhara, Trilochan Mahadev. According to statement of Mahendra Kumar Jaisawal, it was revealed that this tanker was sold to Shiv Bhajan but name of transferee has not been registered in the office of Regional Transport Authority. From Marshal Jeep, registration no. UP 65 Q 3002, 100 pouch of spice liquor (each pouch of 200 ml) was recovered. According to statement of Mahendra Kumar Jaisawal, it was revealed that this tanker was sold to Shiv Bhajan but name of transferee has not been registered in the office of Regional Transport Authority. From Marshal Jeep, registration no. UP 65 Q 3002, 100 pouch of spice liquor (each pouch of 200 ml) was recovered. This Marshal Jeep was registered in the name of Suresh Kumar son of Shanta Prasad, resident of Phulpur. From Tata Sumo, registration no. UP 65 L 1414, 239 pouch of spice liquor (each pouch of 200 ml) was recovered. This Tata Sumo was registered in the name of Jawahar Lal Jaisawal son of K.L. Jaisawal, resident of Dharsauna Bazar, Cholapur. All these pouch were of Noori Brand, made at Lords Aswani Nandganj, Ghazipur. Apart from it, from aforementioned premises, 16500 pouch of liquor kept in 17 plastic drums, 150 liters liquefied spirit, kept in 4 jarrikens were recovered. Shiv Bhajan son of Jawahar Lal was owner of this premises. Vijayee, Kailash and Matroo Lal were arrested from this premises. Shiv Bhajan and some unknown persons run away from the spot. These persons were selling liquor without license and thus they were evading excise duty. 5. During investigation in Case Crime No. 130 & 131 of 2001, police found following criminal histories against Jawahar Jaisawal and his family members:- Against Jawahar Jaisawal:- (i) Case Crime no. 6 of 1990, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, PS Cholapur. (ii) Case Crime no. 164 of 1996, under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, PS Cholapur. (iii) Case Crime no. 159 of 2001, under Section 420, 463, 465, 467, 471, 474 IPC, PS Cholapur. (iv) Case Crime no. 201 of 2002, under Section 216 IPC, PS Cholapur. (v) Case Crime No. 303 of 2009 under Section 304, 308, 193, 201 IPC PS Cholapur. (vi) Case Crime no. 83 of 2010, under Section 272, 328, 304, 120-B IPC, Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 PS Cholapur. Against Shiv Bhajan @ Babloo Jaisawal:- (i) Case Crime no. 192 of 1993, under Section 279, 304 A IPC, PS Cholapur. (ii) Case Crime no. 197 of 1997, u/Section 3 (1) UP Gangster Act, PS Cholapur. (iii) Case Crime no. 76 of 2001, under Section 60 U.P. Excise Act, PS Cholapur. (iv) Case Crime no. 130 of 2001, under Section 122-B IPC, PS Cant, Varanasi. 192 of 1993, under Section 279, 304 A IPC, PS Cholapur. (ii) Case Crime no. 197 of 1997, u/Section 3 (1) UP Gangster Act, PS Cholapur. (iii) Case Crime no. 76 of 2001, under Section 60 U.P. Excise Act, PS Cholapur. (iv) Case Crime no. 130 of 2001, under Section 122-B IPC, PS Cant, Varanasi. (v) Case Crime No. 131 of 2001 under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS Cant, Varanasi. (vi) Case Crime no. 159 of 2001, under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC, PS Cholapur. (vii) Case Crime no. 416 of 2001, under Section 41, 411, 418, 420 IPC, PS Dildar Nagar. (viii) Case Crime no. 303 of 2009, under Section 304, 308, 193, 201 IPC, PS Cholapur. (ix) Case Crime no. 361 of 2009, under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS Cholapur. (x) Case Crime no. 83 of 2010, under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangester & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS Cant, Varanasi. Against Vijay @ Bachau Jaisawal:- (i) Case Crime no. 164 of 1996, under Section 398 A, 323, 504 IPC, Section 3/4 D.P. Act, PS Cholapur. (ii) Case Crime no. 116 of 1996, under Section 3/7 E.C. Act, PS Cholapur. (iii) NCR no. 282 of 1997, under Section 352, 504 IPC, PS Cholapur. (iv) Case Crime no. 355 of 2007, under Section 364, 302, 201 IPC, PS Mugal Sarai. (v) Case Crime No. 83 of 2010, under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS Cant, Varanasi. Against Raghvendra @ Dabloo Jaisawal:- (i) Case Crime no. 303 of 2009, under Section 304, 308, 193, 201 IPC, PS Cholapur. (ii) Case Crime no. 83 of 2010, under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS Cant, Varanasi. Against Mahendra Kumar @ Munnoo Jaisawal:- (i) Case Crime no. 76 of 2001, under Section 60 U.P. Excise Act, PS Cholapur. (ii) Case Crime no. 130 of 2001, under Section 122-B IPC, PS Cholapur. (iii) Case Crime No. 131 of 2001 under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS Cholapur. (iv) Case Crime no. 132 of 2001, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, PS Cholapur. (v) Case Crime no. 201 of 2002, under Section 216 IPC, PS Cholapur. (vi) Case Crime no. (iii) Case Crime No. 131 of 2001 under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS Cholapur. (iv) Case Crime no. 132 of 2001, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, PS Cholapur. (v) Case Crime no. 201 of 2002, under Section 216 IPC, PS Cholapur. (vi) Case Crime no. 83 of 2010, under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS Cant, Varanasi. Against Sarika w/o Shiv Bhajan @ Babloo Jaisawal:- (i) Case Crime no. 83 of 2010, under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, PS Cant, Varanasi. 6. In-charge Inspector, PS Cant, Varanasi, submitted a report dated 09.06.2010 with the approval of Deputy Inspector General of Police/ Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi dated 10.06.2010, for attaching following properties in the names of Jawahar Jaisawal or his other family members under Section 14 (1) of U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986:- (i) House no. 1, situated at plot-2-Kha, village Deyipur, area 87 feet x 35 feet, three storied constructed house, boundaries north-road, south-land Jawahar Jaisawal, east-house Shyam Bihari Yadav, west-house Jai Prakash Jaisawal. (ii) House no. 2, situated at plot-2-Kha, village Deyipur, area 26 feet x 36 feet, two storied constructed house, boundaries north-house Shyam Bihari Yadav, south-land Jawahar Jaisawal, east-Land Naggoo Thakur, west-land Jawahar Jaisawal. (iii) House no. 3 & factory building situated at plot-1062, village Deyipur, area 197 feet x 35 feet, two storied constructed house, boundaries north-land Jawahar Jaisawal, south-land Jawahar Jaisawal, east-road, west-factory building. (iv) House no. 4, situated at plot-6, village Deyipur, area 80 feet x 15 feet, two storied constructed house, boundaries north-road, south-house Jaishree Rajbhar, east-house Ram Jatan Maurya, west-land Awadhoo Chauhan. (v) House no. 5, situated at plot-17, village Deyipur, area 49 feet x 33 feet, two storied constructed house, boundaries north-land Heera Jaisawal, south-house Heera Jaisawal, east-brick paved road, west-house Phulchandra and Gulab Yadav. (vi) M/S Shiv Diesel Store & M/S Varanasi Petrokem Pvt. Ltd. (vii) Plots-1055-ka (area 0.069 hectare), 1056 (area 0.146 hectare), 1057-kha (area 0.144 hectare), 1059 (area 0.138 hectare) situated at village Dharsauna (Deyipur). (viii) Plots-2-Kha (area 0.010 hectare), 19 (area 0.036 hectare), 20 (area 0.012 hectare), 21 (area 0.028 hectare) situated at village Deyipur. Executive Engineer, PWD submitted valuation reports, giving total valuation of the aforementioned buildings as Rs. 75,98,000/-. Tahsildar submitted valuation reports, giving total valuation of the land as Rs. 17,36,000/-. (viii) Plots-2-Kha (area 0.010 hectare), 19 (area 0.036 hectare), 20 (area 0.012 hectare), 21 (area 0.028 hectare) situated at village Deyipur. Executive Engineer, PWD submitted valuation reports, giving total valuation of the aforementioned buildings as Rs. 75,98,000/-. Tahsildar submitted valuation reports, giving total valuation of the land as Rs. 17,36,000/-. Total valuation was Rs. 92,34,000/- except M/S Shiv Diesel Store & M/S Varanasi Petrokem Pvt. Ltd. 7. District Magistrate, by order dated 30.06.2010, was satisfied that valuation of total properties of Jawahar Jaisawal and his family members were more than their income as such these properties were acquired by committing crime. He therefore attached the aforementioned properties and issued show cause notice to the recorded owners, giving three months time to file representation against aforesaid order, failing in giving representation, the matter would be referred to the Court under Section 15 of the Act. He appointed In-charge Inspector, PS Cant, Varanasi as Administrator of the properties. 8. Punjab National Bank filed an application that the attached properties be released in favour of the bank as it were mortgaged for obtaining loan. State Bank of India also filed an application, stating therein that M/S R.K. Impex, situated at Shree Ram Shopping Complex, Cant Road, Varanasi was mortgaged in its favour for obtaining loan. In recovery proceeding, Bank has taken possession over it. Raghavendra Kumar Jaisawal and Jawahar Jaisawal filed an objection dated 18.08.2010 against show cause notice and attachment of aforementioned properties. Tara Devi filed an objection, claiming that the aforementioned properties belonged to her. It has been wrongly attached by District Magistrate and be released in her favour. District Magistrate rejected their applications by order dated 09.08.2010. 9. Tara Devi filed an application for referring the dispute to the Court under Section 16 (2) of the Act, for its decision, on which the matter was referred. On reference the case was registered as Criminal Reference No. 26 of 2010, State of U.P. vs. Tara Devi and Others, under U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and tried by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 7/Special Judge, Varanasi. In the application, Tara Devi stated that land of House no. 1 was purchased by her mother-in-law through sale deed dated 01.03.1974, who had constructed three storied building over it during her life time. Plot 1062 (area 2.14 acre), of village Deyipur, was land of Ambika Tiwari, Janardan Tiwari and Sudarshan Tiwari. In the application, Tara Devi stated that land of House no. 1 was purchased by her mother-in-law through sale deed dated 01.03.1974, who had constructed three storied building over it during her life time. Plot 1062 (area 2.14 acre), of village Deyipur, was land of Ambika Tiwari, Janardan Tiwari and Sudarshan Tiwari. She had purchased share of Ambika Tiwari and Janardan Tiwari, in it and constructed factory premises in an area of 197 feet x 35 feet, which was let out to Vijay Kumar and Mahendra Kumar, on rent, who are doing business in the name of M/S Shiv Diesel Store & M/S Varanasi Petrokem Pvt. Ltd. Land of House no 4 was purchased through sale deed dated 26.09.1992 from Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma and thereafter house was constructed upon it. House no. 5 is situated in old abadi of the village and is ancestral house. Its land was purchased by her mother-in-law in 1940 and she had constructed house on it. She had no brother and had two sisters only. Her mother had sold her immovable properties during her life time. She divided sale consideration and her ornaments among her three daughters, in which she get Rs. 8 lakhs as sale consideration of immovable properties and ornaments of Rs. 2 lakhs, in her share. She utilized this money in purchasing land and constructing houses on it. She had purchased two second hand tanker and was running it on rent, from which also she had separate income. In the year 2000 to 2002, she was having licence of Government Bear shop situated at Susuwahi. In the year 2002 to 2007, she was having licence of Government Foreign Liquor shop at Saraiya. In Income Tax return, for financial year 2005, she has shown her immovable properties of value Rs. 23,48,602/- and cash deposit of Rs. 14,05,680/-. Tara Devi also examined Tara Devi as DW-1, Rekha Devi as DW-2 and Bal Krishna Pandey as DW-3. She also filed photostat copies of khatauni 1377 F to 1379 F, Income Tax Return of Financial year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and renewal of licence form of Government Foreign Liquor shop of the year 2006-07 and receipt of money deposited by her. 10. She also filed photostat copies of khatauni 1377 F to 1379 F, Income Tax Return of Financial year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and renewal of licence form of Government Foreign Liquor shop of the year 2006-07 and receipt of money deposited by her. 10. Additional Session's Judge, by his judgment dated 17.05.2013, held that Tara Devi could not adduce any evidence to show that any of the house was constructed by her mother-in-law Smt. Dhanraji Devi. Although it has been stated that plot-2-kha was ancestral plot but in khatauni plot-27-kha was recorded in the name of Smt. Dhanraji Devi. Tara Devi, in her cross-examination has admitted that she was not going out of her house as such her statement that she was doing business and had separate income is not liable to be believed. She even did not know details of the properties or details of income from various business. Bal Krishna Pandey (DW-3) has admitted that tankers were registered in the name of Jawahar Jaisawal. Punjab National Bank is not entitled to get the attached properties released. On these findings, he dismissed the reference. Hence, this appeal has been filed. 11. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined record. In order to appreciate and decide the controversy raised in these appeals, the relevant provisions of the Act, are quoted below:- Section 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 antisocial activities, namely: (i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860). (ii) distilling or manufacturing or storing or transporting or importing or exporting or selling or distributing any liquor, or intoxicating or dangerous drugs, or other intoxicants or narcotics or cultivating any plant, in contravention of any of the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1910), or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985), or any other law for the time being in force. (iii) occupying or taking possession of immovable property otherwise than in accordance with law, or setting-up false claims for title or possession of immovable property whether in himself or any other person. (iv) preventing or attempting to prevent any public servant or any witness from discharging his lawful duties. (v) offences punishable under the Suppression of [Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956)]. (vi) offences punishable under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 (Act No. 3 of 1867). (vii) preventing any person from offering bids in auction lawfully conducted, or tender, lawfully invited, by or on behalf of any Government department, local body or public or private undertaking, for any lease or rights or supply of goods or work to be done. (viii) preventing or disturbing the smooth running by any person of his lawful business, profession, trade or employment or any other lawful activity connected therewith. (ix) offences punishable under Section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or in preventing or obstructing any public election being lawfully held, by physically preventing the voter from exercising his electoral rights. (x) inciting others to resort to violence to disturb communal harmony. (xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in public. (xii) terrorising or assaulting employees or owners or occupiers of public or private undertakings or factories and causing mischief in respect of their properties. (xiii) inducing or attempting to induce any person to go to foreign countries on false representation that any employment, trade or profession shall be provided to him in such foreign country. (xiv) kidnapping or abducting any person with intent to extort ransom. (xv) diverting or otherwise preventing any aircraft or public transport vehicle from following its scheduled course. Section (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; Section 2 (f)-words and phrases used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the Indian Penal Code shall have the meaning s respectively assigned to them in such Codes. Section 4. Section 4. Special rules of evidence.-Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for the purposes of trial and punishment for offences under this Act or connected offences:- (a).......... (b) where it is proved that a gangster or any person on his behalf is or has at any time been, in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for, or where his pecuniary resources are disproportionate to his known sources of income, the Court shall, unless contrary is proved, presume that such property or pecuniary resources have been acquired or derived by his activities as a gangster; Section 14. Attachment of property .-(1) If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether moveable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any Court. (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. Section 15. Release of property.-(1) Where any property is attached under Section 14, the claimant thereof may, within three months from the date of knowledge of such attachment, make a representation to the District Magistrate showing the circumstances in and the sources by which such property was acquired by him. (2) If the District Magistrate is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim made under sub-section (1) he shall forthwith release the property from attachment and thereupon such property shall be made over to the claimant. Section 16. Inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by court.-(1) Where no representation is made within the period specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15 or the District Magistrate does not release the property under sub-section (2) of Section 15 he shall refer the matter with his report to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under this Act. Inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by court.-(1) Where no representation is made within the period specified in sub-section (1) of Section 15 or the District Magistrate does not release the property under sub-section (2) of Section 15 he shall refer the matter with his report to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under this Act. (2) Where the District Magistrate has refused to attach any property under sub-section (1) of Section 14 or has ordered for release of any property under sub-section (2) of Section 15, the State Government or any person aggrieved by such refusal or release may make an application to the Court referred to in sub-section (1) for inquiry as to whether the property was acquired by or as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act. Such court may, if it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of justice so to do, order attachment of such property. (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 or 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 case. (4) For the purpose of inquiry under sub-section (3), the Court shall have the power of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely: (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (e) issuing commission for examination of witnesses or documents; (f) dismissing a reference for default or deciding it ex-parte; (g) setting aside an order of dismissal for default or ex-parte decision. (5) In any proceedings under this section, the burden of proving that the property in question or any part thereof was not acquired by a 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, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), notwithstanding. 12. U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been enacted with the object to prevent anti-social activities and for coping with the gangsters and the matter connected therewith. It is a well-known fact that over the last few decades, smuggling, foreign exchange violations, tax evasion, drugs activities and crime have all got mixed-up. Evasion of taxes is integral to such activity. It would be difficult for any authority to say, in the absence of any accounts or other relevant material that among the properties acquired by a gangster, which of them or which portions of them are attributable to criminal activities and which properties or which portions thereof are attributable to violation of other laws. It is probably for this reason, the authority has been authorized to raise presumption under Section 4 (b) of the Act that the property has been acquired by an activity as a gangster, if owner (or benami holder) of the property failed to give account of the property. The word “gang” has been defined under Section 2 (b) of the Act. The word “gang” has been defined under Section 2 (b) of the Act. A perusal of the definition of “gang”, Section 14 and 17 and other provisions of the Act, make it clear that the properties acquired by the gangster (or benami holder), by committing crime, which necessarily involves violation of tax laws were liable to be attached even before taking cognizance of such offence and confiscated after holding guilty. Under Section 16 (5) of the Act, burden of proving that the properties specified in the show-cause notice are not illegally acquired properties, is placed upon the person concerned. If ultimately the Court finds that the property is acquired by criminal activities, then it could be confiscated under Section 17 of the Act. By virtue of Section 20, the Act has an overriding effect. As the property may be confiscated as such District Magistrate has been authorized to attach the properties before taking cognizance of the offence. Constitutional validity of the Act has been upheld by Full Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dixit vs. State of U.P. 1987 (24) ACC 164 (FB). 13. While interpreting the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, which is pari-materia with the Act, a Bench of nine Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court in Attorney General for India vs. Amratlal Prajivandas, (1994) 5 SCC 54 , held that we can take note of the fact that persons engaged in smuggling and foreign exchange manipulations do not keep regular and proper accounts with respect to such activity or its income or of the assets acquired therefrom. If such person indulges in other illegal activity, the position would be no different. The violation of foreign exchange laws and laws relating to export and import necessarily involves violation of tax laws. Indeed, it is a well-known fact that over the last few decades, smuggling, foreign exchange violations, tax evasion, drugs and crime have all got mixed-up. Evasion of taxes is integral to such activity. It would be difficult for any authority to say, in the absence of any accounts or other relevant material that among the properties acquired by a smuggler, which of them or which portions of them are attributable to smuggling and foreign exchange violations and which properties or which portions thereof are attributable to violation of other laws (which Parliament has the power to make). It is probably for this reason that the burden of proving that the properties specified in the show-cause notice are not illegally acquired properties is placed upon the person concerned. 14. Supreme Court in Kesar Devi vs. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 427 , held that Section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, lays down that if, having regard to the value of the properties held by any person to whom the Act applies, either by himself or through any other person on his behalf, his known source of income, earnings or assets, and any other information or material available to it as a result of action taken under Section 18 or otherwise, the competent authority has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing) that all or any of such properties are illegally acquired properties, it may serve a notice upon such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income, earnings or assets, out of which or by means of which, he has acquired such property and to show cause why all or any of such properties, as the case may be, should not be declared to be illegally acquired properties and forfeited to the Central Government. The condition precedent for issuing a notice by the competent authority under Section 6(1) is that he should have reason to believe that all or any of such properties are illegally acquired properties and the reasons for such belief have to be recorded in writing. The language of the section does not show that there is any requirement of mentioning any link or nexus between the convict or detenu and the property ostensibly standing in the name of the person to whom the notice has been issued. Section 8 of the Act which deals with the burden of proof is very important. It lays down that in any proceedings under the Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 6 is not illegally acquired property, shall be on the person affected. Section 8 of the Act which deals with the burden of proof is very important. It lays down that in any proceedings under the Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 6 is not illegally acquired property, shall be on the person affected. The combined effect of Section 6(1) and Section 8 is that the competent authority should have reason to believe (which reasons have to be recorded in writing) that properties ostensibly standing in the name of a person to whom the Act applies are illegally acquired properties, he can issue a notice to such a person. Thereafter, the burden of proving that such property is not illegally acquired property will be upon the person to whom notice has been issued. The statutory provisions do not show that the competent authority, in addition to recording reasons for his belief, has to further mention any nexus or link between the convict or detenu [as described in sub-section (2) of Section 2] and the property which is sought to be forfeited in the sense that money or consideration for the same was provided by such convict or detenu. If a further requirement regarding establishing any link or nexus is imposed upon the competent authority, the provisions of Section 8 regarding burden of proof will become otiose and the very purpose of enacting such a section would be defeated. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that under the scheme of the Act, there is no requirement on the part of the competent authority to mention or establish any nexus or link between the money of the convict or detenu and the property sought to be forfeited. In fact, if such a condition is imposed, the very purpose of enacting SAFEMA would be frustrated, as in many cases it would be almost impossible to show that the property was purchased or acquired from the money provided by the convict or detenu. In the present case, the appellant is the wife of the detenu and she has failed to establish that she had any income of her own to acquire the three properties. In such circumstances, no other inference was possible except that it was done so with the money provided by her husband. 15. In the present case, the appellant is the wife of the detenu and she has failed to establish that she had any income of her own to acquire the three properties. In such circumstances, no other inference was possible except that it was done so with the money provided by her husband. 15. Supreme Court in M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P. (2001) 1 SCC 691 , held that the expressions “may presume” and “shall presume” are defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act. The presumptions falling under the former category are compendiously known as “factual presumptions” or “discretionary presumptions” and those falling under the latter as “legal presumptions” or “compulsory presumptions.” When the expression “shall be presumed” is employed in Section 20(1) of the Act it must have the same import of compulsion. When the sub-section deals with legal presumption it is to be understood as in terrorem i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act. This judgment has been followed in State of A.P. vs. C. Uma Maheswara Rao, (2004) 4 SCC 399 . In Narendra Champaklal Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 80 , it has been held that a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act becomes obligatory. It is a presumption of law and casts an obligation on the court to apply it in every case brought under Section 7 of the Act. The said presumption is a rebuttable one. In the present case, the explanation offered by the appellant-accused has not been accepted and rightly so. It is a presumption of law and casts an obligation on the court to apply it in every case brought under Section 7 of the Act. The said presumption is a rebuttable one. In the present case, the explanation offered by the appellant-accused has not been accepted and rightly so. There is no evidence on the base of which it can be said that the presumption has been rebutted. 16. The counsel for the appellant-Tara Devi relied upon judgments of this Court in Smt. Kahkashan Parveen vs. State of U.P. 1999 (2) ACR 1762 (DB), Badan Singh @ Baddo vs. State of U.P. 2002 Cr. L.J. 1392, Smt. Shanti Devi vs. State of U.P. 2007 (2) ALJ 483, Smt. Afzal Begum @ Akhtari vs. State of U.P. 2012 (76) ACC 164, Smt. Maina Devi vs. State of U.P. 2013 (9) ADJ 542 , Smt. Rashida Bano vs. State of U.P. 2014 (5) ADJ 575 and Criminal Appeal No. 4542 of 2010 Shashi Kant Chaurasiya vs. State of U.P. (decided on 15.10.2014), in which phrase “reason to believe” falling under Section 14 (1) of the Act has been considered and it was held that first it has to be proved that the gangster or any person on his behalf is or has been in possession of the property and such property has been acquired by commission of the offence triable under the Act. In order to proceed under Section 14 of the Act, there must be material for objective determination. Thus initial burden of proof is upon State Government. I respectfully disagree with the aforementioned cases, as in these cases provisions of Section 4 (b) of the Act and judgments of Supreme Court on the points mentioned above, particularly Attorney General for India's case (supra) escaped from notice. Under Section 4 (b) District Magistrate is bound to raise presumption that such property or pecuniary resources have been acquired or derived by his activities as a gangster where it is proved that a gangster or any person on his behalf is or has at any time been, in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for, or where his pecuniary resources are disproportionate to his known sources of income. A Bench of seven Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 , held that “Per incuriam” are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong. It is a settled rule that if a decision has been given per incuriam the court can ignore it. It has been further followed in Chauharya Tripathi vs. LIC, (2015) 7 SCC 263 . 17. Now the merit of the appeal of Punjab National Bank has to be examined. The Bank is claiming to release the attached property in its favour on the ground that the properties were mortgaged by its owner to obtain loan and it has first charge over it. Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Builders Supply Corpn. vs. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 1061 , considered the question whether tax payable to the Union of India has priority over other debts and held as follows:- “(i) The common law doctrine of the priority of Crown debts had a wide sweep but the question in the present appeal was the narrow one whether the Union of India was entitled to claim that the recovery of the amount of tax due to it from a citizen must take precedence and priority over unsecured debts due from the said citizen to his other private creditors. The weight of authority in India was strongly in support of the priority of tax dues. (ii) The common law doctrine on which the Union of India based its claim in the present proceedings had been applied and upheld in that part of India which was known as ‘British India’ prior to the Constitution. The rules of common law relating to substantive rights which had been adopted by this country and enforced by judicial decisions, amount to ‘law in force’ in the territory of India at the relevant time within the meaning of Article 372(1). In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant that after the Constitution was adopted the position of the Union of India in regard to its claim for priority in the present proceedings had been alerted could not be upheld. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant that after the Constitution was adopted the position of the Union of India in regard to its claim for priority in the present proceedings had been alerted could not be upheld. (iii) The basic justification for the claim for priority of government debts rests on the well-recognised principle that the State is entitled to raise money by taxation, otherwise it will not be able to function as a sovereign Government at all. This consideration emphasises the necessity and wisdom of conceding to the State the right to claim priority in respect of its tax dues.” 18. Again in Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 4 SCC 94 , held that the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act do not create first charge in favour of banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors and the provisions contained in Section 38-C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Section 26-B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 are not inconsistent with the provisions of the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act so as to attract non-obstante clauses contained in Section 34(1) of the DRT Act or Section 35 of the Securitisation Act. By virtue of Section 20 of the Act, the provisions of the act has an overriding effect. Right of State to confiscate the property acquired by criminal activities and tax evasion has priority over the Bank dues as such the property cannot be released in favour of the Bank. During arguments, the counsel for the appellant-Tara Devi produced papers, showing that Punjab National Bank has done “One Time Settlement” for payment of the dues and sons of the appellant was paying dues according to installments fixed in it. The Counsel for Punjab National Bank has not opposed this fact. The appeal filed by Punjab National Bank has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 19. So far as the appeal filed by Tara Devi is concerned, Executive Engineer, PWD submitted valuation reports, giving total valuation of the aforementioned five buildings as Rs. 75,98,000/-. Tahsildar submitted valuation reports, giving total valuation of the land as Rs. 17,36,000/-. Total valuation was Rs. 19. So far as the appeal filed by Tara Devi is concerned, Executive Engineer, PWD submitted valuation reports, giving total valuation of the aforementioned five buildings as Rs. 75,98,000/-. Tahsildar submitted valuation reports, giving total valuation of the land as Rs. 17,36,000/-. Total valuation was Rs. 92,34,000/- except M/S Shiv Diesel Store & M/S Varanasi Petrokem Pvt. Ltd. It may be mentioned that Jawahar Jaisawal and Raghavendra Kumar Jaisawal filed an objection dated 18.08.2010, before District Magistrate against show cause notice issued to them. But in Court, they did not adduce any evidence. Tara Devi alone contested the matter and adduced evidence in the Court. Under Section 16 (5) of the Act, burden of proof is upon Tara Devi to prove that the properties sought to be attached, belonged to her, which has been legally earned by her and its full account has been submitted to Income Tax Authority time to time or no other tax was due. 20. In the application, Tara Devi stated that land of House no. 1 was purchased by her mother-in-law through sale deed dated 01.03.1974, who had constructed three storied building over it during her life time. Plot 1062 (area 2.14 acre), of village Deyipur, was land of Ambika Tiwari, Janardan Tiwari and Sudarshan Tiwari. She had purchased share of Ambika Tiwari and Janardan Tiwari, in it and constructed factory premises in an area of 197 feet x 35 feet, which was let out to Vijay Kumar and Mahendra Kumar, on rent, who are doing business in the name of M/S Shiv Diesel Store & M/S Varanasi Petrokem Pvt. Ltd. Land of House no. 4 was purchased through sale deed dated 26.09.1992 from Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma and thereafter house was constructed upon it. But these sale deeds have not been filed to show its sale consideration nor any evidence has been adduced to show that this house was constructed by her mother-in-law. She stated that in the year 2000 to 2002, she was having licence of Government Bear shop situated at Susuwahi. In the year 2002 to 2007, she was having licence of Government Foreign Liquor shop at Saraiya. She filed Income Tax Return of Financial year 2004-05, 2005-06, 200607, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and renewal of licence form of Government Foreign Liquor shop of the year 2006-07 and receipt of money deposited by her. In the year 2002 to 2007, she was having licence of Government Foreign Liquor shop at Saraiya. She filed Income Tax Return of Financial year 2004-05, 2005-06, 200607, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and renewal of licence form of Government Foreign Liquor shop of the year 2006-07 and receipt of money deposited by her. All these documents were subsequent to the acquisition of the properties and not relevant to prove that the aforementioned properties were acquired through legal income. 21. She stated House no. 5 is situated in old abadi of the village and is ancestral house. Its land was purchased by her mother-in-law in 1940 and she had constructed house on it. A perusal of valuation report of Tahsildar shows that House no. 5 is situated in abadi plot no. 17 and its area was 49 feet x 33 feet (total 1617 Sq. feet). Since her husband was original resident of this village as such ancestral house no. 5 is liable to be released. 22. She further stated that she had no brother and had two sisters only. Her mother had sold her immovable properties during her life time. She divided sale consideration and her ornaments among her three daughters, in which she get Rs. 8 lakhs as sale consideration of immovable properties and ornaments of Rs. 2 lakhs, in her share. She utilized this money in purchasing land and constructing houses on it. She had purchased two secondhand tanker and was running it on rent, from which also she had separate income. Tara Devi also examined herself as DW-1, Rekha Devi, her sister as DW-2 and Bal Krishna Pandey, driver of the tanker as DW-3. As stated above that she did not file sale deeds executed by her mother. Sale consideration derived from sale deeds executed by her mother was not proved. Bal Krishna Pandey in his statement admitted that the tankers belonged to Jawahar Jaiswal. In the absence of documentary evidence, the Court below disbelieved oral testimony in respect of sale consideration received from the mother of the appellant. This Court has no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by trial Court in this respect as findings of facts recorded in this respect do not suffer from any illegality. 23. She also filed photostat copies of khatauni 1377 F to 1379 F. In this khatauni plot no. This Court has no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by trial Court in this respect as findings of facts recorded in this respect do not suffer from any illegality. 23. She also filed photostat copies of khatauni 1377 F to 1379 F. In this khatauni plot no. 2/2 (area 0.075 acre) of village Deyipur was recorded in the name of Smt. Dhanesara widow of Kanhaiya, mother-in-law of the appellant-Tara Devi. In attachment memo this plot has been mentioned as plot 2-kha (area 0.010 hectare) of village Deyipur. This plot appears to be ancestral land and is liable to be released. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussions, Criminal Appeal No. 3223 of 2013 Punjab National Bank vs. State of U.P. and Others is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 3671 of 2013 Tara Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another is partly allowed. District Magistrate Varanasi is directed to release House no. 5 of attachment memo, situated at plot-17, village Deyipur, area 49 feet x 33 feet, two storied constructed house, boundaries north-land Heera Jaisawal, south-house Heera Jaisawal, east-brick paved road, west-house Phulchandra and Gulab Yadav and plot 2-kha (area 0.010 hectare) of village Deyipur in favour of Tara Devi. Rest of the attachment is approved. ——————