When First Reference Is Made, Duplicate Records Of Property Attached Under Gangster Act Must Be Retained For Future Release Application: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Government to ensure that when a reference for release application of property attached under the U.P. Noting that the Gangster Act did not provide a solution in circumstances when the original records had already been transmitted to the Court by the competent authority and another application for the release of property was presented before it, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held “the State Government should take immediate appropriate measures so that in every case where the competent authority, for the first time, refers the matter to the court having competence to deal with the release aspect as per Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Act, 1986, a complete duplicate photostat copy of the case file be retained by the authority in his office and whenever further representations seeking release come up before the authority, aid of the previous proceedings be taken.” Case Background Pursuant to proceedings against one Rajkumar under the Gangster Act, the property on which 7 vehicles financed by petitioner, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., were parked was attached. “Possibility of there being numerous identical claimants cannot be ruled out and, therefore, if, on account of non-compliance of provisions of Section 15 of the Act or for any other reason, a reference is made by the authority to the Court concerned, a situation may arise that there remains no record available before the authority in relation to the case in which release of the property is sought.” In such situations, the Court observed that because of lack of previous records, the competent authority will not have access to previous records of proceedings to form an informed decision on the subsequent release application. “In such an event, the authority may commit a glaring error not referable to his administrative/quasi judicial wisdom but only on account of lack of knowledge of previous proceedings including a reference already made and the reasons behind the same.” The Court held that once the records are transmitted to the Court, there is no provision in the Act or Rules thereunder for retaining any copies of the file for the competent authority to take action in subsequent release applications.