Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has quashed the attachment of property belonging to a cousin of late gangster Mukhtar Ansari, observing that the state failed to establish any nexus between the commission of any offence and the construction of the building/shops in the question.Allowing the criminal appeal filed by one Mansoor Ansari, Justice Raj Beer Singh, in his judgment dated March 12, said the state cannot seize property under the UP Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, based on mere allegations or simply because an individual is related to a known gangster.The Ghazipur special judge had previously upheld the DM’s decision to attach Mansoor’s shops and building, valued at Rs 26,18,025, on the allegation that the same were ‘benami’ assets of Mukhtar.Accordingly, the court examined section 14 of the Gangster Act to note that the DM’s power to attach property is not absolute.“There must be a nexus between his criminal act and the property acquired by him. His mere involvement in any offence is not sufficient to attach his property, as it is necessary to find out whether his acquisition of property was a result of commission of any offence enumerated in the Gangster Act being a gangster,” the court observed.The court further clarified that the expression “reason to believe” appearing under section 14 is a higher level of state of mind and cannot be equated to mere suspicion or doubt.It found that the DM had failed to record a satisfaction that was legally sound, which made the attachment “wholly arbitrary”.It also noted that the initial burden is always upon the state to satisfy that such property was acquired because of the commission of an offence mentioned in the Act. The court stated that it is not a requirement of law that an aggrieved person must prove the source of income to acquire the properties in question.The high court also took note of the fact that Mansoor Ansari had no criminal history. While a case was registered against Mukhtar Ansari in 2007, the appellant was not named as accused in that matter.The court noted that the impugned (under challenge) order was based on surmises and conjectures.The HC also pulled up the special judge (Gangster Act) for ‘miserably’ failing to consider the evidence produced by the appellant and for rejecting his version without assigning any proper reasoning.Relying on Babu Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the HC reminded that the court dealing with a reference under section 16 of the Act is not empowered to act as a “post office or mouthpiece” of the state or the district magistrate.The court directed the respondent state to release the disputed property forthwith.
