# Raje Bhasin v. Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 158
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1546 of 2025
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raje-bhasin-v-commissioner-of-police-police-commissionerate-lucknow-ors-54614
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law
- Attachment and
Release of Property - Maintainability of
Appeal - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
-
Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 29 - Scheme
of Act provides appeal lies only against
order of Court and not administrative
order - District Magistrate (or delegated
authority) is mandated to refer matter to
competent Court for inquiry after rejection
of application for release - Liberty to
approach Special Court cannot substitute
statutory reference obligation - Where the
authority fails to make a mandatory
reference under Section 16 after rejecting
a Section 15 application, the High Court
can modify the order to direct such
reference . (Para - 12 to 18)

Dispute relates to attachment of property under
Gangsters Act - Commissioner of Police attached
a flat under Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act -
alleging it was acquired from proceeds of crime
- Appellant claimed to be a bonafide purchaser
for value and in possession of the said flat since
2016 - Appellant's application for release of the
property under Section 15 was rejected by the
Commissioner of Police - against which the
present appeal under Section 18 was filed. (Para
- 6 to 8)

HELD: - Impugned order rejecting the release
application was modified to the extent that the
matter stands referred to the Special Court
having
jurisdiction
to
try
such
matters.
Commissioner of Police was directed to pass
appropriate orders for referring the matter to
the competent Court with expedition. Order of
attachment was directed to be kept in abeyance
till the matter is decided by the competent Court
in accordance with law. (Para 18 to 20).

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

## Text

158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances of the case, it is clear that they
had intention to cause death of the deceased
and had also knowledge that by their act they
would cause the death of the deceased. Both of
them are, therefore, guilty of committing an
offence punishable under Section 302 read
with 34 I.P.C. When P.W.-2 Ghanjua and
P.W.-3 Rasna reached to rescue deceased
Thakurdeen both the accused appellant with
the intention to kill them attempted to hit fire
to them. Thus, they have also committed the
offence punishable under section 307 read
with 34 I.P.C.

73. Thus, in the light of prolix and
verbose discussions made herein above and
also regard being had to the entire gamut and
circumstances of the case, we are of the
opinion that the prosecution has proved its
allegations beyond reasonable doubt pointing
unerringly guilt of the accused appellants. The
trial court has rightly accepted the prosecution
evidence holding the accused appellants guilty
for the offence punishable under section
302/307 both read with section 34 IPC. The
cumulative effect of totality of circumstances
shows that all links in the chain are complete
and the conclusion of guilt drawn by the court
below is fully established as the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses is consistent and
finds
due
corroboration
from
medical
evidence. The eye witnesses and the accused
appellants were belonging to the same locality
and knew to each other before incident. who
has fully proved that the accused appellants
have committed offence beyond all reasonable
doubts on the basis of which they have been
convicted and sentenced by the learned trial
judge. The learned counsel for the accused
appellants could not put forth any error or
mistake to call for interference in the
impugned judgment.

74. Resultantly, in our considered
opinion, the accused appellants are guilty of
the offence causing death to an innocent
person Thakurdeen. We find no cogent and
substantial reasons to interfere with the
impugned
judgment
and
order
dated
21.5.1983 passed by the learned trial court.
The judgment and order dated 21.5.1983
passed by the trial court, which is being
affirmed. The appeal sans merit and is
accordingly dismissed. The appellants are on
bail. They be taken into custody forthwith to
serve out the sentence.

75. Certify the judgment to the trial court
to incorporate entry of the result of this appeal
in the relevant register. The compliance be
reported to this court within two months.

76. Trial court record be remitted back
immediately.

77. Mr. Pawan Shukla was appointed an
Amicus Curiae in the instant case. He has
rendered valuable assistance to the Court. The
Court quantifies Rs.15,000/- to be paid to Mr.
Pawan Shukla, Advocate towards fee for the
able assistance provided by him in hearing of
the instant criminal appeal. The said payment
shall be made to Mr. Pawan Shukla, Advocate
by the Registry of this Court within one month
from today.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 158
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1546 of 2025

Raje Bhasin ...Appellant
Versus
Commissioner
of
Police,
Police
Commissionerate Lucknow & Ors.
 ...Respondents
5 All. Raje Bhasin Vs. Comissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate Lucknow & Ors.
159
Counsel for the Appellant:
Kshitij Mishra, Pravin Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law
- Attachment and
Release of Property - Maintainability of
Appeal - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
-
Sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 29 - Scheme
of Act provides appeal lies only against
order of Court and not administrative
order - District Magistrate (or delegated
authority) is mandated to refer matter to
competent Court for inquiry after rejection
of application for release - Liberty to
approach Special Court cannot substitute
statutory reference obligation - Where the
authority fails to make a mandatory
reference under Section 16 after rejecting
a Section 15 application, the High Court
can modify the order to direct such
reference . (Para - 12 to 18)

Dispute relates to attachment of property under
Gangsters Act - Commissioner of Police attached
a flat under Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act -
alleging it was acquired from proceeds of crime
- Appellant claimed to be a bonafide purchaser
for value and in possession of the said flat since
2016 - Appellant's application for release of the
property under Section 15 was rejected by the
Commissioner of Police - against which the
present appeal under Section 18 was filed. (Para
- 6 to 8)

HELD: - Impugned order rejecting the release
application was modified to the extent that the
matter stands referred to the Special Court
having
jurisdiction
to
try
such
matters.
Commissioner of Police was directed to pass
appropriate orders for referring the matter to
the competent Court with expedition. Order of
attachment was directed to be kept in abeyance
till the matter is decided by the competent Court
in accordance with law. (Para 18 to 20).

Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pravin
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. Present criminal appeal under
Section 18 of the U.P. Gangster Act, 1986
has been preferred against judgment and
order dated 16.10.2023, 26.02.2024 and
24.02.2025,
passed
by
the
Police
Commissioner, Lucknow in Case No. 4 of
2022 and 4 of 2022.

3. Brief fact as stated by the appellant
are that present dispute pertains to the
property situated at Flot No. M-1202,
Rohtash Plumeria Apartment, Lucknow.
With regard to aforesaid property the
Commissioner of Police, Lucknow in
exercise of power under Section 14(1) of
the Gangsters Act, passed order of
attachment on 26.02.2024.

4. The appellant submits that the said
property was initially built by one Paresh
Rastogi S/o Laxmi Chandra Rastogi who is
Director of M/s Andes Town Planner Ltd..
It is stated that said flat - Flat No. M 1202,
Rohtas Plumeria Vibhuti Khand, Gomti
Nagar, Lucknow, was purchased by M/s
Sachin Buildcon Pvt. Ltd from M/s Andes
Town Planner Ltd. by letter of allotment
dated 07.10.2011 for an amount of
Rs.28,44,525/-. The appellant has stated
that he in turn has purchased the said
property from M/s Sachin Buildcon Pvt.
Ltd. for consideration of Rs.55,00,000/-
which has been paid by him through
Cheque No. 066105 dated 17.05.2016
drawn on Central Bank of India amounting
to Rs.1,00,000/-, Cheque No. 068441 dated
17.06.2016 drawn on Central Bank of India
amounting to Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.50,00,000/-
has been paid through Housing Loan from
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HDFC Bank by means of Demand Draft
No. 124075 dated 21.06.2016. It is further
submitted that when the said flat was
handed over by M/s Andes Town Planner
Ltd. the purchase was finalized by the
HDFC Bank.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances
that the appellant who has paid entire
consideration for purchase of disputed flat
and even possession has been granted to
him on 17.05.2016. Because the builder of
the flat who was director of M/s Andes
Town Planner Ltd., has fled and has not
transferred the flat, due to which registered
sale deed of the said flat could not be
executed in favour of appellant, though he
is in possession of the said property.

6.
The
proceedings
under
the
Gangsters Act were initiated against one
Paresh Rastogi and the building which was
constructed by him was attached, holding
that same has been acquired out of
proceeds of crime and accordingly ceased.
In
the
aforesaid
circumstances,
an
application for release was given by the
appellant under Section 15 of the Gangsters
Act. In the said application it was stated
that the appellant is bonafide purchaser for
consideration, apart from which he has
further stated that there is no material to
indicate that the said property was
constructed or purchased out of the
proceeds of crime and consequently prayed
for release of the said flat.

7. On the application preferred by the
appellant an order dated 24.02.2025 has
been passed by the Commissioner of
Police, Lucknow, stating that as per records
and as per report received from the I/C
Police Station - Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, it
has been stated that the building has been
constructed by Paresh Rastogi out of
proceeds of crime and accordingly 22
properties belonging to Paresh Rastogi
have been ceased and thereby rejected the
application of the appellant for release of
the said property.

8. The appellant, against order dated
24.02.2025, preferred an appeal under
Section 18 of the Gangsters Act.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the Commissioner of
Police, Lucknow has failed to consider any
of the ground raised by the appellant and
invoked Section 14 of Gangsters Act for
attaching the said property after recording
that the said flat was built/purchased out of
proceeds of crime inasmuch as general and
vague findings have been recorded without
having any actual basis. It is further
submitted that the appellant being bonafide
purchaser for consideration should not be
adversely prejudiced and also that he is in
possession of the said property since 2016
and his rights deserve to be protected.

10. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand
has
opposed
the present
appeal
by
submitting that an appeal would not be
maintainable under Section 18 of the
Gangsters Act. He submits that under
Section 18 of the Gangsters Act appeal
would be maintainable only against order
of a Court and presently the order
impugned in the present appeal has been
passed in exercise of power conferred
under Section 15 of Gangsters Act by the
Commissioner of Police, Lucknow and
therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal.

11. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

12. With regard to maintainability of
present appeal scheme of Act would be
5 All. Raje Bhasin Vs. Comissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate Lucknow & Ors.
161
relevant to be considered. According to
Section 14 of the Gangsters Act, the
District Magistrate has been empowered to
attach any property where he has reason to
believe that the said property whether
movable or immovable has been acquired
by any person as a result of commission of
offence triable under the said Act. Once
order of attachment has been passed an
application for release of the same can be
moved by any person who is aggrieved
under Section 15 of the Gangsters Act. For
making a prayer for release of the property
a representation has to be made to the
District Magistrate, clearly stating the
circumstances and sources from which the
said property was acquired and the District
Magistrate is mandated to consider said
application and in case he is satisfied by the
genuineness of the claim made, he shall
forthwith release the property in favour of
the claimant.

13. In case where attachment has been
made under Section 14 of the Gangsters Act
and no application for release is made under
Section 15 of the Gangsters Act, or even if an
application is made under Section 15 of the Act
and said application is rejected, the District
Magistrate has to refer the matter alongwith his
report to the Court having jurisdiction to try the
offence under the said Act.

14. Accordingly, at this stage coming back
to the facts of the present case where the
application of the appellant has been rejected by
means of impugned order dated 24.02.2025, it
was incumbent upon the District Magistrate or
any other authority exercising power of the
District Magistrate to refer the matter to the
Court having jurisdiction to try such offences.

15. In the impugned order, instead of
referring the matter to the Court having
jurisdiction, the Police Commissioner,
Lucknow has granted liberty to the appellant
to approach the Court of Special Judge
(Gangsters Act). Once the matter has been
referred under Section 16 of the Gangsters
Act, then the competent Court has to consider
such matters, and conduct an inquiry to find
out whether the property was acquired as a
result of commission of any crime. In case
Court finds that there is no material to
indicate that property has been acquired
through source of proceeds which have been
obtained through crime, he would release the
said property from attachment and deliver it
to the person who is entitled for its
possession. Any person who is summoned by
order of the Court which has been passed
under Section 17 of the Gangsters Act, has
liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of
the Act and such an appeal would lie before
the Court which is referred under Section 29
of the Cr.P.C.

16. From the aforesaid provisions of
the Gangsters Act it is clear that once
application for release has been rejected,
the
District
Magistrate
or
Authority
exercising power of the District Magistrate,
is mandated to refer the matter to the Court
competent to try any offence under the said
Act. While rejecting the application for
release under Section 15 of the Gangsters
Act, it is mandatory for the District
Magistrate to refer the matter to the
competent Court, accordingly in the present
case the District Magistrate could not have
given liberty to approach Special Court or
any other Court of competent jurisdiction.
Accordingly, to that extent the impugned
order requires interference and instead of
liberty granted to the appellant to approach
the Court against the order of release,
matter stands referred to the Court
competent to consider the said issue in
exercise of power conferred under Section
17 of the Gangsters Act.
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. Accordingly, this Court finds merit
in the preliminary objection raised by
learned A.G.A. that claim of the appellant
ought to have been considered by the
competent Court under Section 17 of the
Gangsters Act and he do not dispute the
fact that the District Magistrate has failed
to refer the matter in accordance with the
statutory provisions as contained under
Section 16 of the Gangsters Act.

18. In view of above, the impugned
order is modified to the extent that the
matter stands referred to the Special Court
having jurisdiction to try such matters and
the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow is
directed to pass appropriate orders referring
the said matter to the competent Court with
expedition.

19. From the factual matrix as
submitted by the appellant and also from
perusal of order of attachment as well as
impugned order dated 24.02.2025, case for
limited interference in favour of appellant
is made out to the extent that the
attachment order shall be kept in abeyance
till the matter is decided by the competent
Court in accordance with law.

20. In the light of above, the present
appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
order stands modified as per directions
stated herein above. The Commissioner of
Police shall pass appropriate orders within
two weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order and the Special
Court to the which the matter has been
referred
is
directed
to
proceed
in
accordance with law and decide the matter
with expedition.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 162
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.05.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1598 of 2007

Rajesh @ Sajesh Tewari ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Dinesh Chandra Tiwari, Desh Ratan Mishra,
Desh Ratan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Government Advocate

Circumstantial evidence- no direct evidence
of the murder -facts about mental illness of the
appellant emerging from very beginning of
lodging of the first information report by the
first informant (father of the appellant)- and in
the deposition witnesses, 2,3 & 4, which has
been ignored -plea of mental sickness taken by
the appellant in his defence-in his St.ment
u/s313 of the Cr.P.C- medical prescriptions
produced -trial court has failed to appreciate the
evidence led by the defence -conviction set
aside.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bhajju Vs St. of M.P. reported in (2012)4 SCC
327

2. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs St. of Mah.
(2006)10 SCC, 681

3. 'Sabitri Samantaray Vs St. of Odisha' (2023)
11 SCC 813

4. Sharad Birdhichand Sharda Vs St. of Mah.,
(1984) 4 SCC, 116

5. James Martin Vs St. of Kerala, (2004)2 SCC
23

6. Chunni Bai Vs St. of Chhattisgarh 2025 SCC
Online SC 955