Brij Kishor Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The appellant, Brij Kishor Yadav, appealed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Gangster Act) rejecting his application for the release of attached movable and immovable properties. The attachment was based on proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, initiated by the District Magistrate. The attached properties included seven trucks, three four-wheelers, a bank account with a balance of Rs. 17,31,515/-, and two plots of agricultural land, with a total assessed value of Rs. 2,55,84,515/-. The appellant argued that the trial court failed to appreciate evidence, relied on surmises, and did not properly consider his explanations for the acquisition of properties. He also highlighted that the criminal cases forming the basis of the attachment had weak evidence, and he was on bail in all of them. Crucially, the proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, which underpinned the attachment, were subsequently quashed by the High Court during the pendency of the appeal.

Held

The Court held that the prosecution evidence did not establish the requisite nexus between the attached properties and the commission of any offence triable under the Gangsters Act. The Court noted that the Investigating Officer admitted to not investigating the manner of purchase, financing, or source of installment payments for the vehicles, nor the source of income or means of acquisition. The appellant's explanations for the purchase of vehicles, including financing arrangements and installment payments from freight amounts, were specific and supported by documentary evidence, which could not be rejected merely for being disproportionate to income tax returns. The Court emphasized that a higher value of properties than disclosed income is a circumstance requiring explanation but does not, by itself, establish acquisition from gangster activities. Crucially, the subsequent quashing of the proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act by the High Court removed the statutory foundation for the attachment. Therefore, the Court found that the appellant had successfully discharged the burden under Section 16(5) of the Act, establishing that the properties were not acquired as a result of an offence triable under the Gangsters Act. The impugned orders rejecting the application for release and the order of the District Magistrate were set aside, and the District Magistrate was directed to release the attached properties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the attached properties were acquired as a result of gangster activities, as contemplated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (Gangsters Act), specifically Section 3(1)? Petitioner's arguments: The appellant contended that the trial court erred by relying on surmises and conjectures, failing to properly appreciate the documentary and oral evidence regarding the source of acquisition of the attached properties. He argued that the criminal histories attributed to him were either incorrectly recorded or did not provide a lawful basis for inferring that the properties were acquired from gangster activities, especially since he was on bail in all cases and one case had a final report submitted. He further argued that the subsequent quashing of the proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act by the High Court removed the foundation for the attachment. Revenue's arguments: The State-respondent supported the impugned order, arguing that the trial court rightly found the value of the attached properties disproportionate to the appellant's disclosed income. They submitted that the appellant failed to satisfactorily establish the source of acquisition, justifying the trial court's inference.