VASIM KHAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010132962026
2026:UHC:8070
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
CRLR/577/2026
Vasim Khan
--Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mohd. Matlub, learned counsel for
the revisionist.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
2. T he present Criminal Revision has been
filed challenging the judgment and order
dated 30.06.2026, passed by the learned
Second Appellate Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (Gangster Act), Nainital in Criminal
Appeal No. 25 of 2024, Vasim Khan vs. State
of Uttarakhand, whereby the learned
Appellate Court has confiscated the Scorpio
car bearing registration No. UK 19A 4786.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that an FIR under Sections 2/3 of
the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, being FIR No. 180 of
2023, was registered against the revisionist.
Thereafter, a gang chart was prepared and,
on 05.09.2023, an attachment order was
passed by the learned District Magistrate,
Nainital whereby the entire immovable
property of the revisionist and his wife, as
well as the vehicle bearing registration No. UK
19A 4786, was attached.
4. Thereafter, the revisionist moved a
representation against the said attachment
order under Section 14(1) of the U.P.
Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986. After considering the
representation, the learned District
UKHC010132962026
2026:UHC:8070
Magistrate rejected the same vide order dated
11.07.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the
revisionist preferred an appeal under Section
18 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 before the
learned Special Court (Gangster Act)/District
and Sessions Judge, Nainital, being Criminal
Appeal No. 25 of 2024. The said appeal was
partly allowed vide judgment and order dated
30.06.2026, whereby the order attaching the
immovable properties of the revisionist and
his wife was set aside and the said properties
were released. However, the vehicle bearing
registration No. UK 19A 4786 was
confiscated. The ground for confiscation of
the vehicle was that although the vehicle had
been purchased on 12.01.2021, at a time
when no FIR had been registered against the
revisionist, the purchase had been financed
through a bank loan and the EMIs in respect
thereof continued to be paid even after
registration of the FIR under the Gangster
Act. On this basis, the learned Appellate
Court presumed that the EMIs paid towards
the said vehicle loan could have been met
from the proceeds of crime.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
further submits that the provisions of
Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 could
not have been invoked against the revisionist,
inasmuch as, according to the gang chart,
seven cases under the Public Gambling Act,
1867, were shown against him. He submits
that Section 2(b)(vi) of the U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
refers to a gang of persons who habitually
commit or attempt to commit offences
punishable under the specified enactments,
whereas an offence under Section 13 of the
Public Gambling Act, 1867 does not fall
within the said definition.
6. Learned counsel further submits that
when the learned Special Judge (Gangster
Act) had already found that there was direct
UKHC010132962026
2026:UHC:8070
evidence regarding the acquisition of the
immovable properties from the proceeds of
crime and had consequently released the said
properties, there was no justification for
confiscating the vehicle merely on the basis of
conjectures and surmises. It is submitted
that the vehicle was admittedly purchased on
12.01.2021, much prior to the registration of
any FIR against the revisionist, and therefore,
the finding that the EMIs paid towards the
vehicle loan were sourced from the proceeds
of crime is wholly presumptive and
unsupported by any cogent material.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the record, this
Court is of the considered view that an
offence under Section 13 of the Public
Gambling Act, 1867 would not, by itself,
attract the provisions of Sections 2/3 of the
U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986. The definition of
“gang” and the offences contemplated under
Section 2 of the said Act cannot be extended
to an offence under Section 13 of the Public
Gambling Act, 1867 when the same is not
covered by the statutory definition.
8. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, another
significant circumstance is that the vehicle in
question was admittedly purchased on
12.01.2021, whereas the first FIR against the
revisionist was registered much thereafter.
The finding that the EMIs paid towards the
bank loan for purchase of the vehicle were
met from the proceeds of crime is based
merely on conjecture and surmise,
particularly when no cogent material has
been brought on record to establish any
nexus between the vehicle or the payment of
its EMIs and the proceeds of crime. It is also
relevant that the learned Appellate Court,
while finding material regarding acquisition of
the immovable properties from the proceeds
of crime, had set aside the attachment in
respect thereof and released the said
properties. In such circumstances, the
UKHC010132962026
2026:UHC:8070
confiscation of the vehicle, which was
admittedly acquired much prior to the
registration of the first FIR, cannot be
sustained in the absence of any material
establishing that the vehicle itself was
acquired from the proceeds of crime.
9. Accordingly, the judgment and order
dated 30.06.2026 is hereby set aside. The
said vehicle shall stand released in favour of
the revisionist.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that the vehicle is presently in the
possession of the revisionist.
11. In view of the aforesaid submission, the
revisionist shall retain possession of the
vehicle, subject to compliance with all
applicable legal requirements.
12. The Criminal Revision stands allowed in
the aforesaid terms.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
08-09-2026
SB
SHIKSHA
BINJOLA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f2182 2fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B 5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.09.08 19:01:03 +05'30'