NEW DELHI: Ahead of Supreme Court testing the validity of provisions of the UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act and the Rules, the state told the court that attachment of properties of those booked under the law prior to their conviction was a necessity to prevent them from alienating their ill-gotten assets.Petitioner Siraj Ahmed Khan had challenged his arrest under the anti-gangster law and his counsel, senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, had told a bench led by CJI BR Gavai on Friday that attachment of property prior to a person being pronounced guilty by a court was ex facie unconstitutional.He said that during pendency of Khan’s petition challenging validity of the anti-gangster law and rules, the trial was proceeding which would render proceedings before SC. When he sought stay of trial proceedings, the bench declined and said it would hear arguments on constitutionality of the law.Appearing for the state, additional solicitor general KM Nataraj said govt had filed its affidavit, which said the anti-gangster law was a special law, like NIA Act and PMLA, and was required to address the deteriorating law and order situation because of activities of gangsters. It said the anti-gangsters law classified an accused as a member of a gang if he was “acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, indulge in antisocial activities”.The UP govt said the classification was fair and reasonable, and had a nexus with the objective of “combating the rapidly escalating phenomenon of gangsterism in the state”, prevalent criminal statutes having failed to curb the same.Citing similar laws enacted by other states, the UP govt said attachment of properties of those booked under this law was a necessity. “The scheme of the Act, insofar as it contemplates attachment of properties of an accused prior to conviction, is necessary because of the fact that on initiation of criminal proceedings, it is often the case that the accused transfer or alienate the properties acquired by them through commission of offenses to frustrate the trial,” it said.“In view of the covert nature of the operation of gangs, recovery of such properties, consequent to their alienation by the accused, is rendered hopeless. The Union and state legislatures have provided for similar provisions in Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,” it said.
