AMAR SARAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing of orders dated 30.12.2010 and 15.4.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Kushinagar whereby show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter his property was attached and the matter was referred to the competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said proceedings were initiated in a mala fide manner in view of a dispute with one Subhash Chandra Upadhyay because the latter had been allotted a petrol pump. The petitioner had only taken the property on lease from respondent No. 4 Smt. Sirjawati Devi, who was the wife of respondent No. 5 Shiv Kumar. He further submitted that the petitioner Anil Kumar Jaiswal and Smt. Sirjawati Devi, wife of the alleged gangster Shiv Kumar had made representations on 21.1.2011 before the District Magistrate, Kushinagar, wherein they had claimed that the property was acquired with the aid of one Prayag, the father -in -law of Smt. Sirjawati, who was a good carpenter and used to do the work of furniture and possessed a shop. He also had income from agricultural land as he possessed 2 acres of good agricultural land. The District Magistrate rejected this contention as the petitioner and Smt. Sirjawati Devi were unable to substantiate the income from other sources by any documentary or other evidence.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , Shiv Kumar was facing prosecution in case crime No. 612 of 2007, under sections 41/411, 403, 413, 414, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, P.S. Patherwa and case crime No. 362 of 2007, under sections 41/411, 419, 420, 413 and 414 IPC, PS Patherwa, district Kushinagar and the District Magistrate, Kushinagar was prima facie satisfied that the property had been acquired as a result of commission of the offence triable under the Act. He, therefore attached the property and referred the matter to the competent court under section 16(1) of the Act.;