Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 193 (ALL)

JAI BHAGWAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-01-23

DINESH KUMAR SINGH I

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.—All the above three appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.9.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Muzaffarnagar passed in Misc. Case NO. 04 of 2016 (State v. Jai Bhagwan and three others) which is a reference made to the Court below under Section 16 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Gangsters Act’) whereby the order of the District Magistrate Muzaffarnagar attaching the properties of appellants under Section 14 of the Gangster Act vide order dated 20.3.2015 as well as the order dated 18.11.2016 dismissing the objection moved by the appellants, have been upheld. 2. The facts, in brief of this case, are as follows : 3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar had passed an order under Section 14 (1) of the Gangster Act attaching the properties of the appellants on the basis of report of Incharge, P.S. Ram Raj, District Muzaffarnagar dated 17.3.2015 which was submitted through S.S.P., Muzaffarnagar. Details of property are as under : S. No Name of seller Name of purchaser Khasra No. Area Date of sale-deed Village 1 Surendra Kaur w/o Jagtar Singh r/o Ramraj Luxmi Devi d/o Surajmal(w/o Jaibhagwan Lekhpal) 342, 345 & 34 1.789 hectrs. 11920/26.9.06 Rahdawa Gair Ahatmali -do- -do- 344 ½ share) of 0.894 hects. i.e. 0.447 hectrs. 11920/ 26.9.06 -do- 2. Km. Japji d/o Harjeet Singh, r/o Gram Shahpur Luxmi Devi d/o Surajmal (w/o Jaibhagwan Lekhpal) to 1422) hects. Khata No. 60 (khatauni 1417 ½ Share of 4.360 hects i.e.2.180 15237/23.12.06 Shahpur 3. Harprit S/o Jagtar Singh, Power of attorney holder Km. Ikrooppuri Harprit Luxmi Devi D/o Surajmal (w/o Jaibhagwan Lekhpal) Khata No. 60 (khatauni 1417 to 1422) ½ share of 4.360 hects. i.e. 2.180 hectrs. 4220/17.4.07 Shahpur 4. The will was executed in the name of the wife of the accused on 17.3.04 of the property after purchase of the same from Chandrabhan S/o Manshi Lal r/o Buara Khurd. Luxmi Devi (wife of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal) 145 M(Nakal Khatauni 1420-1425) 3/5 share of ¼ of 1.037 hectrs 5984/21.8.03 Bibipur 5. The will was executed in the name of the wife of the accused on 17.3.04 of the property after purchase of the same from Chandrabhan s/o Manshi Lal r/o Buara Khurd. Luxmi Devi (wife of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal) 145 (Nakal Khatauni 1420-1425) 3/5 share of 1/4 of 0.049 hectrs 5983/21.8.03 Bibipur 6. The will was executed in the name of the wife of the accused on 17.3.04 of the property after purchase of the same from Chandrabhan s/o Manshi Lal r/o Buara Khurd. Luxmi Devi (wife of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal) 145 (Nakal Khatauni 1420-1425) 3/5 share of 1/4 of 0.049 hectrs 5983/21.8.03 Bibipur 6. The will was executed in the name of the wife of the accused on 17.3.04 property after purchase of the same from Chandrabhan s/o Manshi Lal r/o Buara Khurd. Luxmi Devi (wife of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal) 146M (Nakal Khatauni 1420-1425) 3/5 share of ¼ of 1.362 hectrs 5983/21.8.03 Bibipur 7. Kamlesh w/o Surendra r/o Mandiwali Gali, Saifpur, Firozpur Luxmi w/o Jaibhagwan r/o Buada Khurd, Khatauli - 32.67 sq. mtr 5898/22.6.12 Shahpur 8. Harprit s/o Jagtar r/o Shahpur 1. Rahur Kumar s/o Shiv Kumar Goel, r/o 71, Ankit Vihar. 2. Luxmi w/o Jaibhagwan r/o Buada Khurd, Khatauli - 691.72 sq.mtr 8970/22.12.09 Shahpur Pargana Details of property purchased by the close relatives of Jai Bhagwan, Lekhpal. S. No. Name of Seller Name of Purchaser Khasra No. Area Date of Sale-deed 4880/- Village 1. Surendra Kaur w/o power of attorney holder Virendrapal s/o Ranjeet Gaurav Kumar s/o Tilakram r/o Buada Khurd (Nephew of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal) 146 (Khatauni 1417 to 1422) ½ share of 2.560 hect. i.e. 1.280 hect. 4880/30.4.08 Shahpur 2 Omkar s/o Vikram Dhanwanti w/o Vikram Singh Gaurav Kumar s/o Tilakram r/o Buada Khurd (Nephew of Jaibhagwan 34/3, 34/4 1.314 hect. 7799/ 22.6.06 Jaggu Jamalpur 3 Harjeet s/o Maha Singh Gaurav Kumar s/o Tilakram r/o Buada Khurd (Nephew of Jaibhagwan 144 (Khatauli 1417 to 1422) 0.6900 hects. 1266/ 4.2.08 Shahpur 4 Harprit S/o Jagtar Singh Gaurav Kumar S/o Tilakram r/o Buada Khurd (Nephew of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal 276, 278 ½ share of 0.675 hectrs 8971/22.12.09 Jalalpur Neela 5. Harprit s/o Jagtar Singh Gaurav Kumar s/o Tilakram r/o Buada Khurd (Nephew of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal 135 ½ share of 0.080 hectrs 8972/22.12.09 Shahpur 6. Gurpal S/o Ranjeet Gaurav Kumar s/o Tilakram r/o Buada Khurd (Nephew of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal 146 khatauni 1417 to 1422 0.640 hectrs 511/21.1.2010 Shahpur 7. Smr. Surendra Kaur Gaurav Kumar S/o Tilakram r/o Buada Khurd (Nephew of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal Khatauni No.136 1.180 hectrs. 4518/19.6.09 Shahpur 8 Harjeet Singh s/o Maha Singh r/o Ramraj Gaurav Kumar s/o Tilakram r/o Buada Khurd (Nephew of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal Khatauni No. 275 0.2300 hectr 1265/4.2.08 Jalalpur Neela 9. Smr. Surendra Kaur Gaurav Kumar S/o Tilakram r/o Buada Khurd (Nephew of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal Khatauni No.136 1.180 hectrs. 4518/19.6.09 Shahpur 8 Harjeet Singh s/o Maha Singh r/o Ramraj Gaurav Kumar s/o Tilakram r/o Buada Khurd (Nephew of Jaibhagwan Lekhpal Khatauni No. 275 0.2300 hectr 1265/4.2.08 Jalalpur Neela 9. Gurpal s/o Ranjeet, Maha Singh power of attorney Harjeet s/o Maha Singh Satish Kumar s/o Surajbhan r/o Sivaya, Tehsil Sardhana (brother-in-law of Jaibhagwan) 17/1, 18/2, khatauni 1418 to 1423 3.192 hectrs. 511/21.1.10 Majahidpur Gair Ahatmali 10. Manjeet Singh s/o Gurdayal Singh Satish Kumar s/o Surajbhan r/o Sivaya, Tehsil Sardhana (brother-in-law of Jaibhagwan) 273 0.230 hects 28.7.11 Jalalpur Neela 11 Manjeet Singh s/o Gurdayal Singh Satish Kumar s/o Surajbhan r/o Sivaya, Tehsil Sardhana (brother-in-law of Jaibhagwan) 134, 147 0.430 hects. 758/ 2190 part of 2.190 hectrs. i.e. 0.758 hects. 6103/ 28.7.11 6103/ 28.7.11 Shahpur Shahpur 4. Against the said attachment order, the appellant No. 2, Luxmi Devi had filed objection on 26.5.2015, Satish Kumar, appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 6805 of 2017 and Gaurav Kumar, appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 6804 of 2017 on 17.6.2015 and appellant Gaurav Kumar had filed additional objection on 2.7.2015. The appellant No. 2, Luxmi Devi had filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 24691 of 2016 (Luxmi Devi v. State of U.P.) in which vide order dated 19.8.2016 a direction was issued for deciding the matter within three months. Pursuant to the said order, the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar dismissed the objections of the appellants by a detailed order dealing with all the objections and upheld the order of attachment dated 20.3.2015 as such. Simultaneously, he made reference to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Gangster Act) under Section 16 of the Act. 5. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Muzaffarnagar passed the impugned order dated 27.9.2017 wherein he upheld the order of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar dated 18.11.2016 and dismissed the reference. In the impugned judgment it has been recorded by him that during arguments, it was mainly stated by the learned counsel for the appellant (objectors) that the proceedings of attachment by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar stand vitiated as they were initiated on the basis of report dated 17.3.2015 of SHO, Ram Raj. In the impugned judgment it has been recorded by him that during arguments, it was mainly stated by the learned counsel for the appellant (objectors) that the proceedings of attachment by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar stand vitiated as they were initiated on the basis of report dated 17.3.2015 of SHO, Ram Raj. SHO, Ram Raj who had got case Crime No. 7 of 2015 registered at the police station, who is complainant of the said crime number and not the Investigating Officer. The report in respect of attaching the property of the appellants had been submitted by the complainant of the case not by the Investigating Officer, which is illegal. The properties attached were purchased between 2006-2012 while the cases which have been shown in the gang chart of accused-appellant No. 1 were of the years 2014 and 2015. Details of which are as under : S. No. Case Crime No. Sections P.S. District 1 163/2014 504,506 IPC, 198 ZA & LR Act & 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 2. 164/2014 420 IPC, 2, 9, 17Ka, 27, 29, 34Ka, 39, 50, 51 Wildlife Protection Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 3. 165/2014 374 IPC, 16, 17, 18 Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 4. 166/2014 3/7 Essential Commodities Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 5. 167/2014 420, 193 IPC, 198 UP ZA&LR Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 6. 168/2014 420 IPC and 2, 9, 17Ka, 27, 29, 34Ka, 39, 50, 51 Wildlife Protection Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 7. 169/2014 420 IPC and 2, 9, 17Ka, 27, 29, 34Ka, 39, 50, 51 Wildlife Protection Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 8. 174/2014 420 IPC and 198 UP ZA&LR Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 9. 177/2014 420 IPC and 198 UP ZA&LR Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 10. 181/2014 420 IPC and 198 UP ZA&LR Act and ¾ Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 11. 183/2014 420 IPC and 198 UP ZA&LR Act and ¾ Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 12. 25/2015 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 13. 07/2015 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 14. 54/2014 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. Jansath Muzaffarnagar 15. 656/2014 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Jansath Muzaffarnagar 16. 655/2014 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Jansath Muzaffarnagar 17 654/2014 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Jansath Muzaffarnagar 18. 90/2015 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Jansath Muzaffarnagar 6. 07/2015 2/3 U.P. Gangster & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act Ramraj Muzaffarnagar 14. 54/2014 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. Jansath Muzaffarnagar 15. 656/2014 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Jansath Muzaffarnagar 16. 655/2014 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Jansath Muzaffarnagar 17 654/2014 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Jansath Muzaffarnagar 18. 90/2015 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC Jansath Muzaffarnagar 6. The appellants/objectors had provided documentary evidence regarding sale of jewelry, details of bank accounts, permission for purchasing the land, certified copies of the sale-deeds, document regarding taking of loan, passbook of recurring deposits and photo copies of tax, photo copy of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, copies of khatauni of the land in question. It was stated that the objectors namely Gaurav Kumar and Satish Kumar were not the members of the family of Jai Bhagwan Lekhpal. They were living separately and were only relatives of Jai Bhagwan. They were not accused in Case Crime No. 7 of 2015, PS, Ram Raj. Further giving the details of the source of their income, they tried to establish that their properties have been attached by the District Magistrate despite the fact that they were not involved in any offence under the Gangster Act. It was also stated that the prosecution could not prove as to by being involved in which offences of the Act, these properties were obtained. The said proceedings of attachment was wholly illegal and the orders of the District Magistrate dated 20.3.2015 and 18.11.2016 deserved to be set aside and all the properties of the appellants deserved to be released in their favour. 7. It is also mentioned in the judgment that reliance was placed from the side of objectors upon Badan Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2001 (43) ACC 1133, wherein it was held that aggrieved person seeking release of attached property was not required to prove the source of income for acquisition of such property. Further, reliance was placed upon Smt. Maina Devi v. State of U.P., 2013 (83) ACC 902, in which it was held that the house was attached because the son of the appellants had been implicated in the cases under the Gangster Act. In such a case it was found that there was no subjective satisfaction of District Magistrate regarding acquisition of the property by commission of the offence under the Gangster Act and hence the order of attachment was found vitiated. 8. In such a case it was found that there was no subjective satisfaction of District Magistrate regarding acquisition of the property by commission of the offence under the Gangster Act and hence the order of attachment was found vitiated. 8. After having heard learned counsel of both the sides, learned Court below has recorded its finding that the objector Smt. Luxmi Devi had purchased 6.9652 hectares of agricultural land situated in village Shahpur, Bibipur, Rahadawar between 2003-2007 besides some other shops, which would have been worth Rs. 35,40,000/- as disclosed by the District Magistrate in his order. Smt. Luxmi Devi wife of Jai Bhagwan, Lekhpal was house wife having no source of income and was depending upon the income of her husband. Her husband Jai Bhagwan has also purchased agricultural land worth Rs. 28,00,000/-. All these indicate to the fact that he was involved in the commission of offence under Gangster Act. The objector Satish Kumar who is brother-in-law of Jai Bhagwan had also purchased agricultural land worth Rs. 32,62,000/- comprising 5.839 hectares within the interval of nine months while there was no proof of his income shown on the file from any occupation to prove that he could have afforded to purchase such huge property. Similarly, Gaurav Kumar had also purchased agricultural land area about 5.71115 hectares worth Rs. 30,32,000/- within a period of four years. All these facts indicate that the accused Jai Bhagwan had earned huge amount being involved in commission of various offences under the Gangster Act and purchased these properties in the name of his wife, brother-in-law Satish Kumar, nephew Gaurav Kumar, which was much higher in proportion to his valid income. It is also recorded in the judgment that from the side of Jai Bhagwan it was argued that he had taken permission from higher authorities to purchase the property therefore the property purchased by him and his wife should be treated to be legally purchased property, but this argument was repelled by the Court below holding that merely because such a permission was taken, does not mean that it would validate an illegal act. It was held by the Court below that the case law relied upon by Jai Bhagwan was not applicable in the facts of the present case. It was evident from the evidence on record that Jai Bhagwan, his wife and his other near relatives ie. It was held by the Court below that the case law relied upon by Jai Bhagwan was not applicable in the facts of the present case. It was evident from the evidence on record that Jai Bhagwan, his wife and his other near relatives ie. Satish Kumar and Gaurav Kumar could not show their source of income to purchase these properties which were attached and thus it was held that the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 18.11.2016 was in accordance with law. The objectors could not provide any evidence, on the basis of which it could be held that the said properties were not acquired by being involved in committing offence under the Gangster Act. It is also held that the burden to prove this was upon the objectors as has been laid-down in PNB ARNB v. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (4) ALJ 774, wherein it is laid-down that “property acquired by gangster activities, for release thereof the Court is authorized to raise presumption against the properties being acquired by gangster activities, in case of failure of owner to provide ownership details. Burden to prove the properties to be legally acquired is placed upon the concerned owner. If the accused cannot even satisfactory give explanation regarding his ownership and evidence adduced by the accused is not sufficient to rebut the presumption, in that situation properties acquired by gangster activities cannot be released.” Learned Court below has concluded that in its opinion the impugned order dated 18.11.2016 did not contain any legal, procedural or factual error and was wholly proper order and accordingly decided the reference. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Court below has ignored the material provided by the appellants to show that all the properties which had been shown to have been acquired through gangster activities, were actually legitimate property acquired through legitimate means and due explanation was given regarding their purchase. Certain sale-deeds have been provided whereby properties were acquired. Record reveals that presently only 4.360 hectares of property in village Shahpur, khasra No. 60 was owned by appellant No. 2 apart from the shops and ‘’Gher’ which is adjoining portion of house of the appellants. There were no plots (vacant piece of property) in the name of the appellants and the appellant No. 1 does not own any property in his name. There were no plots (vacant piece of property) in the name of the appellants and the appellant No. 1 does not own any property in his name. The agricultural income, income generated through sale of previously acquired plots, regular permission sought from the competent authority for acquiring the said land, has all been ignored by the Court below. The tax returns showing the acquisition of properties were filed from the year 2006 onward while proceedings under the Gangster Act have been initiated only in the year 2015. The cases which had been mentioned in the proceedings under Gangster Act belong to the year 2014. Prior to that there was no criminal case or any proceedings of criminal nature initiated against the appellants. Even otherwise, the proceedings have been initiated only against the appellant No. 1 but the properties belonging to appellant No. 2 have been attached by the impugned order. The Court below has failed to consider exclusive ownership of appellant No. 2. No objection has ever been made by the Income Tax Department in respect of the details of income of appellants. No proceedings in respect of the assets disproportionate to known source of income have been initiated against them; hence presumption on the part of the Court below that these properties were acquired through gangster activities was absolutely illegal and deserves to be set aside. However, it is on record that a recommendation has been made for vigilance enquiry to be conducted in respect of the disproportionate assets but till date no report has been filed adverse to them. All the cases have been lodged against the appellants at the instance of land mafias and proceedings of all these cases have been stayed by this Court in favour of appellant No. 1 which is ignored by the Court below which indicates of his pre-conceived notion. It is absolutely perverse finding that because the appellant No. 2 had shown herself as resident of Meerut and described herself as daughter of Surajbhan and not wife of Jai Bhagwan, that she should be held to have acquired all the properties in her name through illegal sources. All these properties acquired by her have been shown before the Income Tax Authorities and there was no dispute regarding identity of appellant No. 2 and there was no dispute that she was wife of appellant No. 1. All these properties acquired by her have been shown before the Income Tax Authorities and there was no dispute regarding identity of appellant No. 2 and there was no dispute that she was wife of appellant No. 1. The permission that has been given by the appropriate authority was given after enquiry. All the proceedings under the Gangster Act which have been imposed against the appellants have been initiated at the instance of Tehsildar, who had lodged First Information Report against the appellant No. 1 in the year 2014 and thereafter many other cases have been lodged, and in all of them proceedings have been stayed by the High Court. It is also stated that the appellant No. 1 who was Lekhpal had broken a land Mafia syndicate of Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Mr. Avtar Singh, Mr. Jagdeep Singh and M. Mahendra Singh. It is by way of retaliation that all of them conspired against him and targeted him hand-in-glove with other revenue officials to initiate proceedings under the Gangster Act by declaring a gang of five persons namely appellant No. 1, Rahul Kumar, Amar Singh, Upkar and Kamal. However, the properties of only appellants and Rahul Kumar have been attached. It is further stated that in the year 2015, cases under the Gangster Act were lodged against 568 persons by the police of district Muzaffarnagar, out of which the properties of only three persons have been attached which included two accused of the present case, which shows deliberate discrimination on the part of the district administration. The district administration has crippled him financially by taking his job and seizing all his assets only to coerce him into submission so that correct facts of the case would not be canvassed by the appellant before superior Courts. As per settled law for attachment of property, an enquiry is required to be done by the Investigating Officer and not by the first informant of the case whereas in the present case the first informant Arun Kumar Tyagi, SHO, P.S. Ramraj himself submitted a report against him for attaching his properties before the District Magistrate. This shows the motive on the part of the administration for pressurizing the appellant Jai Bhagwan to cease their activities against land Mafias. This shows the motive on the part of the administration for pressurizing the appellant Jai Bhagwan to cease their activities against land Mafias. The Court below has not taken into account the purchase and sale of properties made from consideration amount of subsequent purchases and has taken all the purchases into account cumulatively to hold that all these properties have been acquired through illegal means, which is incorrect. Earlier purchased properties which were sold by him to acquire many subsequent properties should have been excluded from the properties shown to have been acquired by the appellants. The total amount of the properties purchased by the appellant has been held by the Court below to be 300 bighas of land, the market value of which would stand at Rs. 9.00 crores which is a perverse finding as the property which is presently owned by the appellant is only 4.360 hectares (65 Bighas and 5 Bighas) of land at Bibipur. The properties which have been purchased by appellant No. 1 are not purchased from his sole income rather the same have been purchased out of saving made by him, personal loan taken, invome accruing from agricultural properties and also income derived from sale of previous property, some of which have been inherited by him while some have been acquired by sale of previously acquired property. All the details given in this regard have been ignored by the Court below. The properties of Satish Kumar and Gaurav Kumar who are not accused in Case Crime No. 7 of 2015, have their own separate residence and have no concern with the appellants. Gaurav Kumar is nephew of appellants and Satish Kumar is brother-in-law of appellant No. 2. An absolutely fantastic finding has been returned by the Court below that the value of agricultural land purchased by him is Rs. 28.00 lacs which is illegal. It is also perverse finding to hold that prior permission to purchase the property is a formal procedure because for acquiring illegal property, there would be no necessity of seeking prior permission. The value of the property purchased by the appellants has been mentioned as Rs. 9.00 crores without getting any valuation of the properties done by any approved valuer. It is also perverse finding to hold that prior permission to purchase the property is a formal procedure because for acquiring illegal property, there would be no necessity of seeking prior permission. The value of the property purchased by the appellants has been mentioned as Rs. 9.00 crores without getting any valuation of the properties done by any approved valuer. The circle rate has been arbitrarily fixed by the authorities, of the properties which have been purchased by the appellant without making any enquiry from the vendors as regards actual rate, from whom such properties had been purchased. There would be a presumption in favour of a registered document having been executed for the amount mentioned therein. There is no a shred of evidence on record that a single penny more was paid to them than what was recorded in the sale-deed. The appellant No. 1 is a dedicated and high performing Lekhpal who has been appreciated for his work and has been provided with an arm license for his security as he had taken decisive action against the land Mafias and had broken their hold over the people. Two enquiries dated 28.5.2010 and 13.4.2011 have been conducted by the SDM, Muzaffarnagar which clearly show that the appellant Jai Bhagwan has not acquired assets disproportionate to his income through illegal means. Mentioning all these things, it has been prayed that the present criminal appeal be allowed and the judgment and order dated 27.9.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, District Muzaffarnagar in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2016 (Government of U.P. v. Jai Bhagwan and others) under Section 16 of the U.P. Gagters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Ramraj be set aside and direction be issued to the District Magistrate to hand over the property which has been seized by means of order dated 18.11.2016, to the appellants. 10. In other two Criminal Appeals mentioned above, the same grounds have been taken and the similar prayer has been made for releasing the properties attached in their favour. 11. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that only Jai Bhagwan, appellant No. 1 is made an accused under the Gangster Act, who is under-going trial in GST No. 12 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 7 of 2015. 11. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that only Jai Bhagwan, appellant No. 1 is made an accused under the Gangster Act, who is under-going trial in GST No. 12 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 7 of 2015. His wife Smt. Luxmi Devi has not committed any offence under the Gangster Act and yet her properties, which she had purchased out of her own income have been attached by the impugned order. A detailed explanation has been given by learned counsel for the appellants by drawing attention of the Court to the objection filed by her (Annexure-4 to the affidavit). Simultaneously, attention is also drawn towards the order of attachment dated 20.3.2015 in which the properties belonging to Jai Bhagwan and his near relatives have been described in first table containing 18 properties which have not been attached. The properties shown in the name of his wife Smt. Luxmi Devi, appellant No. 2 shown in table No. 2 at sl.Nos. 1 to 8 have been attached. Similarly, the properties of near relatives of Jai Bhagwan i.e. Gaurav Kumar and Satish Kumar have been described in table 3 at sl.Nos. 1 to 11 have also been attached. 13. Regarding properties of appellant No. 2, Smt. Luxmi Devi, learned counsel for the appellants has explained relating to their purchase, source of income and all other details which would justify that these properties were validly purchased by her and could not be attributed to any source of income generated out of involvement in any commission of offence under Gangster Act. i) With regard to property mentioned at sl.No. 1—Khasra Nos. 342 and 345 area 1.789 hectares was purchased by appellant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly from Surendra Kaur through sale-deed dated 26.9.2006 which is situated in village Rahdawa. For source of money it has been stated that for the said property, a personal loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- was taken from Punjab National Bank, Branch Jansath, Muzaffarnagar on 15.9.2006. Photocopy of the bank statement has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the objection; appellant No. 2 had sold her jewellary which was received by her in marriage on 20.9.2016 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was taken from Punjab National Bank, Branch Jansath, Muzaffarnagar on 15.9.2006. Photocopy of the bank statement has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the objection; appellant No. 2 had sold her jewellary which was received by her in marriage on 20.9.2016 for a sum of Rs. 1,77,189/- to Jain Abhushan Bhandar, Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, receipt is annexed as Annexure-4 to the objection; appellant No. 1 had inherited agricultural land area 0.350 hectares situated in village Buara Khurd, copy of khatauni is annexed as Annexure-5 to the objection; appellant No. 2 had received 0.366 hectares of land in village Bibipur through will dated 278.2014, copy of the said will is annexed as Annexure-6 to the objection. Besides this, the appellant No. 2 always had two buffaloes and by sale of their milk, she had earned the money and the money earned from agriculture, she had deposited the same in State Bank of Patiala, Khatauli in account No. 55075629943 which was in her name and her father’s name jointly. Besides that the appellant No. 1 had drawn Rs. 1,50,000/ from the bank on 31.8.2006, photocopy of the passbook is annexed as Annexure-7. Besides that he had also borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/- from her relatives and friends. From 1993 to 2006 he had opened five recurring accounts in the City Post Office, Muzaffarnagar in which total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been deposited and this amount was also used for purchase of the said property. From account No. 5115416 the appellant No. 1 had received Rs. 80,507/- on 15.9.2006, copy of the cheque is annexed as Annexure-8. From account No. 5115202 he had received Rs. 41670/-, photocopy of the pass book is annexed as Annexure-9. Besides that he also received amounts of Rs. 16868/-, Rs. 25,200/- and Rs. 25,200/- from recurring deposits numbers of which have been mentioned in the objection. Further it is stated that before purchase of this property, an application had been moved before SDM Jansath for granting permission who after conducting enquiry through Revenue Inspector, Meerapur granted permission on 24.9.2006, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-10 to the objection. ii) With regard to property mentioned at sl. No. 2, it is stated that plot No. 60 area 4.360 hectares situated in village Shahpur, Tehsil Janshat, District Muzaffarnagr was purchased in two parts. Half portion of the said plot was purchased on 23.12.2006 for an amount of Rs. ii) With regard to property mentioned at sl. No. 2, it is stated that plot No. 60 area 4.360 hectares situated in village Shahpur, Tehsil Janshat, District Muzaffarnagr was purchased in two parts. Half portion of the said plot was purchased on 23.12.2006 for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- and the other half portion was purchased on 17.4.2007 for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, photocopies of both sale-deeds are annexured as Annexures-11 and 12 to the objection. For purchase of this property, the appellant No. 2 had sold the land which she had purchased on 26.9.2006 i.e. khasra Nos. 342, 345 and 344 for a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-, photocopy of the sale-deed is annexed as Annexure-13 to the objection. In addition to this, the appellant No. 2 had taken loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Jansath, photocopy of the bank statement and photocopies of khatauni in which endorsement of loan is made have been annexed as Annexures-14 and 15 to the objection; an amount of Rs. 52,750/- was taken as loan against insurance policy, photocopies of the statement of said policy and receipt of loan are annexed as Annexures-16 and 17 to this objection. The appellant No. 1 had drawn Rs. 65,000/- from his GPF Account as loan, photocopy of the treasury cheque is annexed as Annexure-18 to the objection. He had taken Rs. 75853/- from R.D. Account No. 1196336 maintained in Post Office, Bara Bazar, Khatauli, photocopies of the cheque and the passbook are annexed as Annexures 19 and 20 to the objections. iii) With regard to property mentioned at sl.No. 3—It is mentioned that an application for permission to be granted was moved by the appellant No. 1 on 15.12.2006 for purchase of plot No. 60 situated in village Shahpur and for sale of plot Nos. 342, 345 and 344 situated in village Rahdawa before the competent authority who granted the same on 18.12.2006 after proper enquiry, photocopy of the permission is annexed as Annexure-21 to the objection. The appellant No. 2 had one house ‘Gher’ in village Shahpur in joint name with Rahul which was purchased for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- out of which half share was in the name of appellant No. 1. For purchase of this ‘’Gher’ (house) an amount of Rs. The appellant No. 2 had one house ‘Gher’ in village Shahpur in joint name with Rahul which was purchased for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- out of which half share was in the name of appellant No. 1. For purchase of this ‘’Gher’ (house) an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by the appellant No. 2 to the seller, photocopy of the sale-deed is annexed as Annexure-22 to the objection. For purchase of this land, the appellant No. 2 had used the amount which she had earned from sale of paddy crop. The total income out of paddy crop of khasra No. 60 has been shown in account No. 3721000100125741 of Punjab National Bank, Jansath which was deposited on 26.11.2009 through cheque No. 702523. Photo copy of the passbook is annexed as Annexure-23 to the objection. An amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to the seller through cheque No. 911927 dated 22.12.2009. Photocopy of the cheque is annexed as Annexure-24 to the objection. It is further mentioned that for purchase of ‘’Gher’ (house), an application was moved before competent authority on 18.12.2006, who had granted permission on 22.9.2009 after proper enquiry. Photocopy of the permission is annexed as Annexure-25 to the objection. iv) With regard to property Nos. 4, 5 and 6—It is stated that total agricultural land in the name of appellant No. 2 in village Bibipur was 0.366 hectares which she had inherited through will. Copy of the khatauni is annexed as Annexure-6 to the objection. v) With regard to property No. 7—It is stated that the appellant No. 2 had sold two shops on 22.6.2012 for a consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- in village Samana @ Ramraj. Copy of the sale-deed is annexed as Annexue-26 to the objection. For purchase of four shops, fund was generated through sale of crop of sugarcane which was sowed on the land belonging to appellant No. 2 to the Tikaula Sugar Mill which made payment in the joint account of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 being Account No. 13871 in Punjab and Sind Bank, Ramraj. From the amount which has been deposited in the bank through sale of sugarcane, an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- through cheque No. 26423 was paid to the seller Smt. Kamlesh Rani. Photocopy of the passbook is annexed as Annexure-27 to the objection. Besides this, the appellant No. 2 had deposited an amount of Rs. From the amount which has been deposited in the bank through sale of sugarcane, an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- through cheque No. 26423 was paid to the seller Smt. Kamlesh Rani. Photocopy of the passbook is annexed as Annexure-27 to the objection. Besides this, the appellant No. 2 had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,28,000/- in her account No. 3721000100125741 which accrued from sale of paddy crop on 15.7.2010. Photocopy of the cheque of Corporation which has made payment is annexed as Annexue-28 to the objection. In the same account an amount of Rs. 39,757/- was deposited on 11.1.2011 accrued due to sale of paddy crop. Photocopy of receipt issued by Krishi Utpadan Mandi is annexed as Annexure-29 to the objection. In the same account an amount of Rs. 1,71,600/- was credited on 31.1.2011 though cheque No. 000285 due to sale of paddy crop. Photocopies of the checque and the receipt of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti are annexed as Annexures-30 and 31 to the objection. In this account an amount of Rs. 25740/- was deposited on 10.6.2011, an amount of Rs. 47385/- was deposited on 13.6.2011, an amount of Rs. 16,380/- was deposited on 13.6.2011 and an amount of Rs. 98280/- was deposited on 24.6.2011 which were received through sale of paddy crop. Photocopies of the receipts issued by U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. are annexed as Annexures 32 to 35 to the objection. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- was paid through cheque No. 911940 to Smt. Kamlesh Rani, the seller on 22.6.2012. Photocopy of the passbook is annexed as Annexure-23 to the objection. Further, it is stated that for purchase of the shop, an application for permission was moved before competent authority which had been allowed by the competent authority on 18.6.2012. Photo copy of the permission is annexed as Annexure-36 to the objection. 14. The description of the source of income by which the properties were purchased by Gaurav Kumar & Satish Kumar, near relatives of Jaibhagwan are mentioned below : i) 1/2 portion of Plot No. 146 area 2.56 hectare situated in Village Shahpur was purchased by him on 30.4.2008 from Smt. Surendra Kaur for which he had drawn Rs. 47,400/-through Cheque No. 901224 dated 20.4.2008 from his Account No. 01-136190 in Punjab National Bank, Jansath, which was paid to Smt. Surendra Kaur. 47,400/-through Cheque No. 901224 dated 20.4.2008 from his Account No. 01-136190 in Punjab National Bank, Jansath, which was paid to Smt. Surendra Kaur. He had taken loan from PNB, Jansath, account number of which was AP/127. From this account Smt. Surendra Kaur was paid Rs. 3,95,000/- on 30.4.2008 through Bank Draft No. 352179. Photocopy of sale-deed is Annexure-5. ii) He had purchased Khasra No. 34/3, area 0.657 hectares and Khasra No. 34/4 area 0.657 hectares in village Jalalpur on 22.6.2006 in Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing which, money was arranged by Tilak Ram, father of Gaurav Kumar by selling his inherited jewellery & livestock. This land was barren which was made arable. Subsequently this land was sold by him for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 12.12.2007. The amount of sale consideration was received by him through Bank-draft (888505) No. 000023000 of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- was drawn from Punjab and Sindh Bank by Cheque No. 96867. The said amount was deposited by him in his Account No. 3721000100136190. The photocopy of sale-deed is Annexure-2. iii) He purchased plot No. 144 area 0.690 hectare situated in village Jalalpur Neela and Khasra No. 275 area .230 hectare for which amount of Rs. 2,21,000/- by Cheque No. 901222 dated 4.2.2008 and of Rs. 74,000/- by Cheque No. 901223 dated 4.2.2008 was drawn from his account number 01-136190 in Punjab National Bank, Jansath and amount was paid to Harjeet Singh. Photocopy of sale-deed is Annexures-3 and 4. iv) He purchased 1/2 portion of Khasra No. 276 area .450 hectares, village Jalalpur Neela and 1/4th portion of Khasra No. 278, area 0.450 hectare for consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/-, from Harprit Singh on 22.12.2009 and the payment was made vide Cheque No. 901233 dated 22.12.2009 to the seller through his Account No. 01-136190 of Punjab National Bank, Jansath. Photo copy of sale-deed is Annexure-10. v) He (Gaurav Kumar) purchased 1/2 portion of Plot No. 135 area 0.080 hectare on 22.12.2009 from Harprit Singh for an amount of Rs. 14,800/- which was paid through his Bank Account No. 01-136190, Punjab National Bank, Jansath by Cheque No. 901232 dated 22.12.2009. Photo copy of sale-deed is Annexure-11. vi) Plot No. 146, area .646 hectares had been purchased by him on 21.1.2010 from Gurpal Singh for a consideration of Rs. 2,37,000/- which was paid through Cheque No. 901235 dated 28.12.2010 from his account No. 01-136190, Punjab National Bank, Jansath. Photo copy of sale-deed is Annexure-11. vi) Plot No. 146, area .646 hectares had been purchased by him on 21.1.2010 from Gurpal Singh for a consideration of Rs. 2,37,000/- which was paid through Cheque No. 901235 dated 28.12.2010 from his account No. 01-136190, Punjab National Bank, Jansath. Photo copy of sale-deed is Annexure -12. vii) He purchased 1/2 portion of Khasra No. 136 area 2.366 hectares, village Shahpur from Vivek Kumar on 19.6.2009 and the payment was made from his Account No. 01-136190, Punjab National Bank, Jansath through Cheque No. 901231, of amount of Rs. 4,75,000/-, photo copy of the sale-deed is Annexure -9. viii) Plot No. 275 area 0.230 hectare, village Jalalpur Neela was purchased from Harjeet singh, details are given with property at Sr. No. 3 above. xi) He (Satish kumar) has purchased Khasra No. 17/1, 18/2 and 19m for consideration of Rs. 3,94,000/-on 21.1.2010 from Gurpal and others in village Shahpur. Photo copy of the sale-deed is Annexure-1. x) Plot No. 273, village Jalalpur Neela was purchased from Manjeet Singh for an amount of Rs. 1,14,000/-. Photo copy of sale-deed is Annexure-2. xi) Plot No. 134 and 147, Area 0.430 hectare and 0.758 hectare respectively have been purchased by him from Manjeet Singh for consideration of Rs. 5,87,000, photo copy of sale-deed is Annexure-3. 15. It is further stated that he (Satish Kumar) is at present 60 years old. He was working in Modi Rubber Limited, Modipuram on the post of tube builder from 1976 to 1996 and his salary was Rs. 4200/- per month. Besides that, he used to earn by working over time as well. He has filed photo copies of his bank account i.e. Annexure 4 and 5. He has further stated that he is still receiving Rs. 3900/- as pension per month since after 1996 continuously and company had given him Rs. Him 2,75,000/- lump sum at the time of his retirement. He also possesses seven bighas agricultural land in which he cultivates vegetables etc. He also runs milk dairy. At the time of building of NH-58, his land was acquired and he had been given an amount of Rs. 1,52,308/- by cheque as compensation, which was deposited in pass book. Photo copy of which is Annexure -5. 16. He also possesses seven bighas agricultural land in which he cultivates vegetables etc. He also runs milk dairy. At the time of building of NH-58, his land was acquired and he had been given an amount of Rs. 1,52,308/- by cheque as compensation, which was deposited in pass book. Photo copy of which is Annexure -5. 16. The learned AGA in rebuttal has argued that the proceedings under the Gangster Act were initiated on 19/1/2015 by imposing a case under the said Act in the form of Case Crime No. 7 of 2015, P.S. Ram Raj, District Muzaffarnagar, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster Act against accused Jai Bhagwan. There were four other accused in the said crime number apart from Jai Bhagwan namely Upkhar, Kamlesh, Amar Singh and Rahul Kumar Goel who have formed a gang and indulge in various kind of anti-social activities. Against the accused Jai Bhagwan there were total number of eighteen criminal cases, although all of them belong to year 2014 and onwards. The accused Jai Bhagwan has purchased the properties which have been attached in the name of his close relatives namely his wife, his nephew Gaurav and his brother-in-law Sateesh and what is noteworthy is that all these properties have been purchased in the jurisdiction of Tahasil, Janset, where accused Jai Bhagwan was posted as Lekhpal. According to the provisions under Section 15 of the Gangster Act where any properties were attached under Section 14, the claimant thereof may within 3 months from the date of knowledge of such attachment make a representation to the District Magistrate showing the circumstances in and sources by which such property was acquired by him. As per the provision of Section 16(5) of the Gangster Act with 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 the Gangster Act, shall be on the person claiming the property despite there being any contrary provision in Indian Evidence Act. The jail authorities had informed the accused Jai Bhagwan about the attachment of the properties but he failed to submit any explanation within three months, although his wife did file a reply which was not found satisfactory. The jail authorities had informed the accused Jai Bhagwan about the attachment of the properties but he failed to submit any explanation within three months, although his wife did file a reply which was not found satisfactory. Although, he (learned A.G.A.) has admitted that these properties were acquired much prior to the year 2014 when the criminal cases were launched against the accused Jai Bhagwan. He also has made argument that the relatives including the wife of the accused Jai Bhagwan did not have sufficient sources of income to purchase the properties and in fact all these properties which have been attached were nothing but properties purchased by the accused Jai Bhagwan in the name of these persons and that is the reason why they were attached having been taken to have been acquired by Jai Bhagwan by the earning he had from his indulgence in committing offences under the Gangster Act. 17. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it seems to be just and expedient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Gangster Act which are as follows : 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. 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. 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. 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. (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. 17. Order after inquiry.—If upon such inquiry the Court finds that the property was not acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of any offence triable under this Act it shall order for release of the property of the person from whose possession it was attached. In any other case the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal of the property by attachment, confiscation or delivery to any person entitled to the possession thereof, or otherwise. 18. From the above provision it is evident that the order of the District Magistrate attaching one’s property should be based on reasons and not arbitrary. The expression “reason to believe” appearing therein has some intent and purpose. It puts check on the arbitrary exercise of power of attachment by denying him of his right to any property. What the law requires is 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 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 ‘’belief’ is very much stronger word than ‘’suspect’ and it involves the necessity of showing that the circumstances were such that a reasonable 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 “suspicion” or “doubt” and mere seeing also cannot be equated to believing. “Reason to believe” is a higher level of the state of mind. Similar words “reason to believe” as appearing in the Act are also there in the Income Tax Act. Interpreting the said expression, the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ganga Saran and Sons Private Limited Calcutta v. Income Tax Officer and others, AIR 1981 SC 1363 , observed that words “has reason to believe” is stronger than the words “is satisfied”. The belief entertained by the authority must not be based on reasons which are relevant and material. The Court, of course, cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which weighed with the authority in coming to the belief, 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. 19. It is now well-settled that property being made subject-matter of an attachment under Sections 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, he is to make a reference to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Act. 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, he is to make a reference to the Court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Act. The Court, which dealing with the reference made under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act has to see whether the property was acquired by a gangster as a result of commission of an offence triable under the Act and has to enter into the question and record his own finding on the basis of the inquiry held by him under Section 16 of the Act. 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. If the conclusion of the Court is otherwise, it may pass such orders as it thinks fit for the disposal of the property by attachment, confiscation or delivery to any person entitled to the possession thereof or otherwise. This power has been conferred on the Court under Section 17 of the Act. In other words, the attachment made under Section 14 of the Act can be upset by Court after an enquiry under Section 16 of the Act and in that situation the Court has power to release the attached property in favour of the person from whose possession the property was attached. The power of the Court to hold an enquiry under Section 16 on the reference made by District Magistrate is not an empty formality, which has a purpose behind it. 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 properties 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. 20. In the case at hand the learned Special Judge has completely overlooked the aforesaid important questions nor has he recorded any specific finding thereon. It was obligatory on his part to consider the aforesaid questions while considering the main question whether the property attached by the District Magistrate was acquired by or as a result of the commission of an offence triable under the Act. The reasoning reflected from the impugned order seems to be that all the properties which have been attached are believed to have been acquired by the accused Jai Bhagwan in the name of his wife and other close relatives, because the Court below has expressed its agreement with the opinion of the District Magistrate that these persons did not have sufficient means/source of income to purchase the properties. No direct nexus has been established between acquisition of these properties by the accused Jai Bhagwan and the source of income generated for purchasing these properties by indulgence in commission of offences under the Act as a ‘’gangster’. It is also not reflected from the impugned order as to whether a detailed enquiry has been conducted by the Court below as is contemplated under Section 16 of the Act, which was statutory duty cast upon the Court below. It is apparent from the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the properties have been attached of such persons who are not even accused under the Gangster Act. It is apparent from the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the properties have been attached of such persons who are not even accused under the Gangster Act. No proper appreciation has been made of the evidence given by the appellants of the details of the purchases made of the properties as has been narrated above. It was bounden duty of the Court below to take into consideration all the details of the purchases made, sources of income disclosed for making those purchases and whether they were not justified. No clear finding has been recorded by the Court below as to how these properties which were purchased much prior to initiation of first case against Jai Bhagwan shown in the gang chart, could have been linked to have been purchased from the income generated through indulgence in commission of offence under the Act. It was also required from the Court below to record its findings as to which of the cases out of the cases shown in the gang chart were covered under the Gangster Act. Meticulous details have been provided by the appellants regarding purchase of these properties as regards their sources of income. How the sources of income are disbelieved, is not made clear. The learned Special Judge has overlooked these material aspects of the case and did not consider the evidence on record in correct perspective, therefore the impugned judgment and order in respect of the appellants’ properties deserves to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the learned Special Session Judge for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of observations made by this Court in the body of this judgment. 21. All the three appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 27.9.2017 is set aside. These cases are remanded back to the Special Judge for being considered afresh in the light of the observations made by this Court herein above. The learned Special Judge shall decide these matters afresh in accordance with law expeditiously after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties, if required, even opportunity of leading evidence would also be given to them.