Amar Saran and S.C.Nigam, JJ. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing an order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar) initiating proceedings and attaching the petitioners' properties under Section 14 of the U. P. Gangsters Act in Case No. 13/2008, State v. Manzoora and others, and for a direction to release the movable and immovable properties attached in pursuance of the aforesaid order. Four submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. One, as the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar only on the basis of the report of the incharge Inspector, P. S. Kairana dated 22.8.2008, it could not be said to be in accordance with Section 14 (1) of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Gangsters Act or the Act), as on the basis of the police report alone, the District Magistrate could not have "reason to believe" that the movable and immovable properties in possession of the petitioners had been acquired as a result of commission of offences triable under the Gangsters Act, which is the requirement for initiation of proceedings under Section 14 of the Act.
(3.) IN this connection, he placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Joti Prasad v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 1167. As per this decision, according to the learned counsel, the term "reason to believe" requires a higher level of state of mind, than mere suspicion or doubt and that a person can be presumed to have a reason to believe something or a state of affairs only if he has sufficient cause to believe that such a thing or state of affairs exists. This is provided under Section 26 of the I.P.C. IN substance it was submitted that what this means is that a person will have "reason to believe" something, if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would, by probable reasoning view that such a state of affairs exists. Significantly, in the case of Joti Prasad the appellant, who was a licensed stamp vendor was found in possession of counterfeit stamps. The explanation offered by the appellant was that he used to purchase all his stamps from the treasury including the counterfeit ones. However when the appellant failed to produce the register maintained by him, nor made any effort to summon the treasury report, it could not render probable the defence plea raised by the appellant, that it was an innocent and bona fide purchase from the treasury. IN those circumstances, it was inferred by the Apex Court that the appellant had knowledge and reason to believe that the stamps, which he had in possession and which he was offering for sale were counterfeit, and the conviction awarded by the subordinate courts was upheld. In the present case the District Magistrate's satisfaction that the petitioners had acquired properties by commission of offences punishable under the Gangsters Act was based not only on the police report, but also on the various documents attached with it and the approval of the S.S.P. Muzaffar Nagar. On the said report, the District Magistrate in his detailed order has noted that the petitioners have been involved in a large number of cases since 1991 to 2007, relating to theft, murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping for ransom, N.D.P.S. Act, U. P. Control of Goondas Act and under the Gangsters Act etc. All the petitioners used to reside together. Furthermore, the petitioners only had 22 bighas of ancestral land in their village Bhura, P.S. Kairana upto 1997. However, they had purchased 74 bighas of agricultural land and substantial properties which are detailed in the order running into crores of rupees, which could not have been acquired by the only source of livelihood viz., the 22 bighas of ancestral land inherited by them. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the D.M. could not have reason to believe that the said properties had been acquired as a result of commission of offences triable under the Gangsters Act.;