- (1.) THE two petitions re late to two different proceedings but were heard together as certain common ques tions of law were raised by Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners in the first mentioned case and Sri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in the second mentioned case. We had heard Sri Amarjeet Singh, learned AGA for the State in both the cases.
(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 3983 of 1999 an action under Section 14 of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) by the District Magistrate, Bareilly is under question whereby the District Magistrate directed attachment of certain properties indicated in the order, dated 30-6-1999 under the purported exercise of his powers under Section 14 of the said Act. In the Writ Petition No. 3669 of 1999 also an action purporting to be under Section 14 of the Act as taken by the Dis trict Magistrate, Allahabad, has been under challenge. Although the learned counsel for the parties raised a point touching the vires of Section 14 of the Act as violative of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it was contended on behalf of the Slate that the constitu tional validity of the provisions of the Act stood upheld by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Dikshit. As a counter point, the petitioners urged that in Ashok Kumar Dikshit's case, the Court had really engaged itself on the point of legislative competence of the State legislature to enact the concerned Act and the vires of the individual provisions of the Act was not at all probed into. In view of the contents of notice themselves, we feel that we need not go to this question in these two cases at all as would be indicated in the further para graphs of this order.
(3.) OBJECTIONS were also taken on the legality of the action of the D. M. in locking the premises of the petitioners and in not following the provisions of attachment as envisaged under Section 83 of the Cr. P. C. This point again may not be gone into for the reasons indicated above. The Act was passed by the U. P. legislature in 1986 and the preamble indi cates that it was an Act to make special provisions for the prevention of and for coping with gangsters and anti-social ac tivities and for matters connected there with or incidental thereto. The Act defines what is a gang and who is a gangster and provides for a penalty for being a gangster. Section 14 provides for attachment of property and clause (1) thereof reads as follows:- "14. Attachment of property.- (1) If the District Magistrate has reason to believe that any property, whether moveable or immovable, in possession of any person has been acquired by a gangster as a result of the commission of an offence triable under this Act, he may order attachment of such property whether or not cognizance of such offence has been taken by any Court. (2) The provisions of the Code shall, mutandis apply to every such attachment. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Code the District Magistrate may appoint an Administrator of any properly attached under su b-section (1) and the Administrator shall have all the powers to administer such property in the best interest there of. (4) The District Magistrate may provide police help to the Administrator for proper and effective administration of such property. ";