The Allahabad High Court clarified that a District Magistrate must refer a matter to the competent court under Section 16(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, after rejecting a plea seeking release of property attached under the Gangsters Act.

A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant made the observation while quashing an order passed by the District Magistrate, Firozabad, which had rejected an application seeking release of attached property.

The Court noted that after declining to release the property under Section 15 (Release of property), the District Magistrate had not referred the matter to the court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Gangsters Act, as required under Section 16(1) [Inquiry into the character of acquisition of property by court].

"The impugned order is in the teeth of Section 16(1) of the Gangsters Act", the Court held, while quashing the order. gangsters act

The petitioner had challenged the order passed on March 9, 2026, by the District Magistrate, Firozabad, in purported exercise of powers under Section 16 of the Gangsters Act.

The petitioner's properties had earlier been attached by an order dated July 22, 2025, under Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act (Attachment of property).

Aggrieved by the attachment, the petitioner moved an application under Section 15 of the Act seeking release of the property.

The District Magistrate's rejection order referred to Sushil Kumar alias Satta's criminal antecedents, stating that he entered the world of crime in 2011 and that 19 cases had been registered against him.

The order referred to allegations involving offences including robbery, rioting, kidnapping, rape, criminal intimidation, house trespass, assault, threatening to kill, gambling, possession of illegal arms, attempt to murder and murder. gangsters act

The District Magistrate further recorded that Sushil Kumar's wife had purchased the immovable properties with money allegedly acquired through criminal activities.

It concluded that the representation failed to produce concrete evidence that the property was acquired from a legitimate source of income and, accordingly, rejected the representation seeking release of the property. gangsters act

The High Court reproduced Section 16(1) of the Gangsters Act, which provides that where no representation is made within the prescribed period under Section 15, or where the District Magistrate does not release the property under Section 15(2), he shall refer the matter with his report to the court having jurisdiction to try an offence under the Act. gangsters act

The Court observed thus:

"As per the mandate of Section 16(1) of Gangsters Act, the District Magistrate in the event of declining to release the attached property on an application under Section 15(1) of Gangsters Act is liable to refer the matter to the court having jurisdiction".

The bench noted that the District Magistrate had not made such a reference in the present case.

The learned AGA, on instructions, did not dispute this fact. gangsters act

Finding the District Magistrate's order contrary to the statutory requirement under Section 16(1) of the UP Gangsters Act, the High Court quashed the order.

The Court remitted the matter to the District Magistrate, Firozabad, with a direction to decide the petitioner's representation seeking release of the property afresh, in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the High Court's order. gangsters act

The Court accordingly allowed the writ petition to the extent indicated.