Allahabad High Court Directs State to Retain Duplicate Records in Gangster And Anti-Social Activities Act Cases
Key Ruling:
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to ensure that a duplicate copy of original records is retained when a competent authority refers a release application for attached property under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 to a court.
This decision addresses a procedural gap in the Act, where subsequent release applications were being filed. But the original records had already been sent to the court.
Court’s Observations
A bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kshitij Shailendra noted that the Gangster Act does not have provisions to handle situations where previous records are unavailable.
The Court emphasized that:
The competent authority must retain a full duplicate record in its office when making the first reference to a court.
This ensures that in subsequent applications, officials can review past proceedings before making a decision.
The move will prevent proxy or collusive proceedings and misuse of legal processes.
Case Background
The case involved proceedings against Rajkumar under the Gangster Act, leading to the attachment of property where seven vehicles. This was financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., were parked.
The petitioner (Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services) sought release of the vehicles from the Commissioner.
The Commissioner rejected the request, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court. Thus, arguing that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reject the application.
Legal Issues Raised
Jurisdictional Overreach – The petitioner argued that the Commissioner could only release the property or refer it to the Court, but not reject it outright.
Lack of Record Keeping – The Commissioner had already referred the matter to the Court two months earlier but failed to mention it in the rejection order.
Limitation Period Dispute – The Additional Advocate General claimed the application was filed after the 3-month limitation, while the petitioner contended it was within time based on their date of knowledge.
High Court’s Interpretation of the Gangster Act
- Section 15. If an application is filed within three months of knowledge of attachment, the District Magistrate may release the property if satisfied with its genuineness.
- Section 16. If no application is filed in time or the District Magistrate is not satisfied. The case must be referred to a competent Court.
- Section 17. The Court then decides the fate of the attached property after inquiry.
- The High Court ruled that once the Commissioner had referred the matter to the Court, he had no further authority (functus officio) to decide on another release application.
Court’s Directions
To prevent errors due to missing records, the Court instructed the State Government to:
Ensure a full duplicate copy of the case file remains with the competent authority.
Require all subsequent release applications to be reviewed alongside the complete records of previous proceedings.
The ruling aims to streamline legal proceedings, prevent confusion, and avoid misleading decisions due to missing information.
Final Verdict
The High Court partly allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner’s release request be considered by the Court. The reference was pending. This decision strengthens procedural safeguards under the Gangster Act. It ensures transparent and informed decision-making by competent authorities.
