BINDU KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA appearing for respondents.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that before passing the order under Section 14(1) of the Act for attachment of properties, it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate to have recorded his reasons for being satisfied that the property intended to be attached was acquired as a result of offences triable under the Act. He has also argued that the only material considered by the District Magistrate to record such a satisfaction in the impugned order are the report dated 13.5.13 submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad and the report of the investigating officer dated 29.4.2013 and that in absence of any other material independent of the aforesaid two police reports, the satisfaction recorded by the District Magistrate that there were reasons to believe that the property was acquired as a result of commission of offences cannot be said to be lawful. Hence, the impugned order cannot be permitted to be sustained.

(3.) In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Smt. Kahkashan Parveen v. State of U.P., 1999 (39) ACC and referred to paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof, wherein it has been laid down that the provisions of Section 14 require that there must be reason to believe that the conditions for an action under Section 14 of the Act existed and that those conditions are that certain property in possession of any person must have been acquired by a gangster and that too by commission of an offence under the Act.