Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – ss. 2 & 3 – A case u/s 147, 304, 504, 323, 506, 120-B IPC was registered against the six accused persons – On further investigation and on the basis of the call recordings between the co-accused, the names of the appellant was added as accused in the case – Thereafter, a gang chart was prepared against the appellant and sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act has been lodged/registered against the appellant – The appellant approached the High Court u/s 482 of CrPC to quash the order and the FIR registered against her u/s 2/3 of Gangster Act – The main contention raised by the appellant is that she was not named in the FIR and her name has surfaced in further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C – The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act – Whether, a person against whom a single FIR/charge sheet is filed for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, 1986 can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act – Held: On perusal of the definitions of ‘Gang’ and ‘Gangster’ under the Gangsters Act, 1986, a ‘Gang’ is a group of one or more persons who commits the crimes mentioned in the definition clause for the motive of earning undue advantage, whether pecuniary, material or otherwise – Even a single crime committed by a ‘Gang’ is sufficient to implant Gangster Act on such members of the ‘Gang’ – The definition clause does not engulf plurality of offence before the Gangsters Act is invoked – There is no specific provision under the Gangsters Act, 1986 like the specific provisions under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 that while prosecuting an accused under the Gangsters Act, there shall be more than one offence or the FIR/charge sheet – Therefore, so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, there can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/chargesheet for any of the anti- social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On a fair reading of the definitions of ‘Gang’ contained in Section 2(b) and ‘Gangster’ contained in Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act, a ‘Gangster’ means a member or leader or organiser of a gang including any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated inclause (b) of Section 2, who either acting singly or collectively commits and indulges in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) can be said to have committed the offence under the Gangsters Act and can be prosecuted and punished for the offence under the Gangsters Act. There is no specific provision under the Gangsters Act, 1986 like the specific provisions under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 that while prosecuting an accused under the Gangsters Act, there shall be more than one offence or the FIR/charge sheet. As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the statute are to be read and considered as it is. Therefore, considering the provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet, if it is found that the accused is a member of a ‘Gang’ and has indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person and he/she can be termed as ‘Gangster’ within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can be prosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act. Therefore, so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, there can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/chargesheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an anti- social activity is by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person. [Para 10][635-B-G]
2. In the present case, it is alleged that the main accused was a gang leader and who was the mastermind and he hatched the criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused includingthe appellant herein to commit the murder of the deceased S for a pecuniary benefit as there was a property dispute going on since long between the family members. It is also to be noted that the other co-accused were already charge sheeted/prosecuted for the offence under the Gangsters Act and therefore the appellant and the other two co-accused being members of the ‘Gang’ were also required to be prosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act also like other co-accused. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that no prosecution could have been initiated against the appellant-accused for the offences under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986. [Para 11][635-H; 636-A-C]
Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322 : [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 1081; Karansinh Chetansinh Vaghela v. State of Gujarat 2021 SCC onLine Gujarat 1260 referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.