Vehicle purchased before FIR cannot be confiscated without cogent proof of acquisition from crime proceeds.

An FIR under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“Gangsters Act”) was registered against the revisionist, followed by preparation of a gang chart.

On 5 September 2023, the District Magistrate, Nainital, attached the revisionist’s and his wife’s immovable properties and a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. UK 19A 4786.

The revisionist’s representation under Section 14(1) of the Gangsters Act was rejected on 11 July 2024.

In Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2024 under Section 18, the Special Court released the immovable properties but confiscated the vehicle, reasoning that although it had been purchased on 12 January 2021, the loan EMIs continued to be paid after registration of the FIR and could therefore have been paid from proceeds of crime.

The Court applied Sections 2(b)(vi), 2/3, 14(1), and 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

Section 2(b)(vi) confines the relevant gang-related conduct to offences falling within the statutory definition and specified enactments; consequently, Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867, cannot be brought within that definition when it is not statutorily covered.

Attachment and confiscation of property under the Gangsters Act require a legally sustainable nexus between the property and proceeds of crime; such nexus cannot be established through conjecture or surmise alone.

The Court also applied the principle that property acquired before the relevant criminal activity or FIR cannot be confiscated without material demonstrating that the property itself was acquired from proceeds of crime.

The Court held that Section 13 of the Public Gambling Act, by itself, did not attract Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act because the offence was outside the statutory definition in Section 2(b)(vi).

Independently, the vehicle had been purchased on 12 January 2021, substantially before the first FIR against the revisionist.

The mere fact that loan instalments continued to be paid after registration of the FIR did not establish that the instalments were sourced from proceeds of crime.

No cogent evidence connected either the vehicle or the EMI payments with such proceeds.

The Court further noted that the appellate court had released the immovable properties and found the vehicle’s confiscation, unsupported by specific material, unsustainable.

The judgment and order dated 30 June 2026, by which the Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. UK 19A 4786 had been confiscated, was set aside.

The vehicle was ordered to be released in favour of the revisionist, who was permitted to retain possession subject to compliance with all applicable legal requirements.