Criminal appeal challenging confirmation/attachment of two gata properties under the UP Gangsters Act, 1986, after one property was confirmed and another released by the trial court. The appellant sought time to produce bank statements evidencing withdrawals for both properties; court adjourned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 668 of 2024
Appellant :- Kamla Devi @ Kamla Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Awasthi,Ram Saran Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard.
Instant appeal has been filed raising a challenge to the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge to the extent it relates to confirmation or attachment of property in Gata No. 581. Also under challenge are the attachment orders dated 05.07.2022 & 03.07.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki under Section 14 (1) & 16 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1986").
Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that an order under Section 14 (1) of the Act, 1986 dated 05.07.2022 had been issued with respect to various properties alleged to be belonging to the son of the appellant namely Sri Vicky Mishra as well as the appellant. So far as present dispute is concerned, the same is only confined to the two properties of the appellant namely Gata No. 581 and Gata No. 431.
The Gata No. 581 is said to have been purchased by the appellant by means of registered sale deed for Rs. 10,00,000/- in the year 2014 and Gata No. 431 had been purchased by the appellant through registered sale deed for Rs. 4,00,000/-through sale deed dated 05.05.2014.
After the order dated 05.07.2022, the appellant claims to have represented to the District Magistrate who passed an order under Section 15 of the Act, 1986 dated 03.04.2023 and thereafter the matter was referred to the Court under Section 16 (1) of the Act, 1986 for its confirmation with regard to both the properties that had been attached.
The learned Court vide order dated 31.01.2024 has confirmed the said attachment order with respect to Gata No. 581 and has released Gata No. 431.
The reason which has prevailed on the learned Court is that the appellant has given sufficient proof with regard to purchase of Gata No. 581 for Rs. 10,00,000/- but no sufficient proof pertaining to bank
statement etc. has been given with regard to Gata No. 431.
Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court towards the supplementary affidavit dated 13.03.2024 more particularly the chart as prepared in paragraph 4 to contend that the learned Court has patently erred in law in not releasing the Gata No. 581 which had been purchased for Rs. 4,00,000/- despite the bank statement indicating a withdrawal of Rs. 4,39,000/- and the purchaser having indicated in the said registered sale deed itself for having received the entire amount.
Placing reliance on the said supplementary affidavit viz-a-viz the order passed by the learned Court dated 31.01.2024, the contention is that the learned Court has patently erred in law in not releasing the Gata No. 581 despite ample bank proof/withdrawals having been indicated for purchase of the said land.
The aforesaid argument at this stage is found to be fallacious inasmuch as the learned Court has found the bank statement that has been given in proof of having purchased the said properties, incidentally both purchased in the year 2014, towards Gata No.431 which was for Rs. 10,00,000/- meaning thereby that the withdrawals that have been demonstrated by the appellant before the learned Court have been treated towards the purchase of a larger property of Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, adjustments of those withdrawals as have been claimed by the appellant towards Gata No. 581 which is less valuable property which is Rs. 4,00,000/- may perhaps result in having no proof for the more valuable property of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
Upon the same being pointed out, learned counsel for the appellant prays for some time to study the matter and to file any bank statement that he may be having with regard to purchase of both the properties in order to indicate the withdrawals or payments for both the properties.
Let such an affidavit be filed within three weeks.
List thereafter.
Order Date :- 21.9.2024 Pachhere/-
Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamla Devi @ Kamla Tripathi
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Another
Abdul Moin
As recorded by the court registry
9 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
