AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State respondents and perused the record.
Instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been field for quashing the proceedings of Gangster Special Trial No. 317 of 2002, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Gangster Act, Agra.
Factual matrix is that first informant/ SHO Ajay Kumar Agarwal, registered an FIR on 8.11.2001, on the basis of gang chart, approved by the District Magistrate, against accused applicant Dinesh @ Tito, Shree Kant @ Lale, Chakravarti, Shankar and Ganesh, with the allegation that Dinesh alias Tito, is the Gang Leader, and the other accused applicants are its members, who have threatened public and forcibly terrorized the public and are involved in anti-social acts. The accused applicants are further involved in illegally earning money, but due to their terror, no complaint has been lodged by the aggrieved persons. The accused applicants are a threat to the public, law and order, hence steps are to be taken for stopping their criminal activities.
The accused applicants were disclosed to be involved in the following offenses:-
Case crime number 153 of 2001, section 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura against accused Dinesh @ Tito, Chakravarti, Shankar and Ganesh;
Case Crime number 309 of 2001 under sections 323, 504, 506, 336 IPC, Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura against accused Dinesh @ Tito and Shreekant @ Lale;
Case Crime Number 199 of 2001 under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police station Goverdhan, District Mathura against accused Dinesh @ Tito, Shreekant @ Lale, Shankar and Ganesh; and
Case Crime number 260A of 2000 under sections 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura against accused Dinesh @ Tito, Shreekant @ Lale and Chakravarti.
On the basis of above criminal cases, which was shown in the gang chart, an FIR being Case Crime No.327 of 2001was registered under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1986) on 08.11.2001, at Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura, in which after investigation a charge sheet has been submitted against the accused applicants, on which cognizance has been taken on 29.07.2002 by Special Judge(Gangster Act), Agra, which has been registered as Gangster Session Trial No.317 of 2002, State vs. Dinesh and others, which has been challenged in the instant proceedings.
Learned counsel for the accused applicants submits that on the basis of Case Crime numbers 153 of 2001, 309 of 2001, 199 of 2001 and 260A of 2000, which were shown in the gang chart, proceedings under the Act of 1986, have been initiated against the accused applicants; but in Case Crime number 153 of 2001, 199 of 2001 and 260A of 2000, the accused applicants have been acquitted by the competent criminal court by orders dated 17.03.2004, 03.08.2024 and 13.05.2003 respectively. He further submits that only in one case, that is case crime number 309 of 2001, the accused applicants have been convicted under Section 323, 506, 392 IPC, and have been acquitted under Section 504, 336 IPC, by the trial court.
Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants have been convicted in only one case, namely Case Crime No. 309 of 2001, under Sections 323, 506 and 392 IPC, while they were acquitted of the remaining charges, as stated in the submissions. It was argued that the proceedings under the Gangsters Act could not lawfully be initiated or continued merely on the basis of a single criminal case, particularly when the applicants had been acquitted in the remaining cases mentioned in the gang chart.
It is further submitted that the order dated 16.02.2013 passed by the concerned Magistrate, whereby the accused-applicants were convicted of the offences under Sections 323, 506 and 392 IPC, was challenged by filing Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2013 before the learned District Judge, Mathura. The appeal was partly allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura, vide order dated 16.02.2017, whereby the accused-applicants were acquitted of the offences under Sections 506 and 392 IPC, while their conviction under Section 323/34 IPC was affirmed. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused-applicants have filed Criminal Revision No. 874 of 2017, Prahlad @ Daroga and 3 others vs. State of UP and another, which is pending before this Court.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that the proceedings under the Act of 1986, could not be permitted to continue merely on the basis of their conviction under Section 323/34 IPC, particularly when they have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 506 and 392 IPC. It is submitted that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel further submits that there is no material on record to establish that the accused-applicants are gangsters who pose a threat to society or are involved in any illegal trade or occupation. Accordingly, it is prayed that the charge-sheet submitted against the accused-applicants under the Act of 1986 be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.GA opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-applicants, submits that the charge-sheet under the Act of 1986 was submitted on the basis of four criminal cases taken into consideration by the Station House Officer concerned while initiating the proceedings. The District Magistrate, after considering the material available on record, duly accorded approval for the same.
It is further submitted that, at the time of submission of the charge-sheet under the Act of 1986, all the criminal cases mentioned in the gang chart were pending against the accused-applicants. Their subsequent acquittal in one or more of those cases, after cognizance had been taken on the basis of the charge-sheet, cannot, by itself, render the charge-sheet illegal or invalidate the proceedings retrospectively.
Learned A.GA further submits that, in Case Crime No. 309 of 2001, the accused-applicants were also convicted under Section 392 IPC, which, according to him, prima facie supports the allegation that they were involved in criminal activities that created terror in society. It is, therefore, contended that the charge-sheet submitted against the accused-applicants under the Act of 1986 does not warrant interference by this Court. With these submissions, learned AGA prays that the instant application be dismissed as devoid of merit.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The first question which arises for consideration is whether the proceedings under the Act of 1986 are liable to be quashed merely because the applicants have been acquitted in three of the criminal cases mentioned in the gang chart.
In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 19 SCC 57, wherein it has been held that the provisions of the Act of 1986 do not require the commission of multiple offences as a condition precedent for initiating prosecution under Sections 2/3 of the Act. Even a single offence may furnish the basis for prosecution, provided that the accused is found to be a member of a gang and the activities attributed to him satisfy the requirements of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986. The number of criminal cases, by itself, is not determinative of the applicability of the Act.
The next question is whether the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and the material collected during investigation disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Sections 2/3 of the Act of 1986.
Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986 defines a gang with reference to a group of persons who, acting singly or collectively, indulge in the specified anti-social activities by violence, threat or show of violence, intimidation, coercion or otherwise, with the object of disturbing public order or obtaining undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for themselves or another person.
Thus, mere involvement in criminal cases or the existence of criminal antecedents cannot, in every case, be treated as sufficient to attract the provisions of the Act. The allegations must disclose the necessary connection between the activities attributed to the accused and the statutory requirements of Section 2(b).
The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1216, while examining the provisions of the Act of 1986, held as under:-
“18.At this stage, we shall refer to the definition of “gang” as set out in Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986. The definition reads thus:
“(b)“Gang” means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, 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, indulge in anti-social activities, namely[…]”
19.Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986 should be read alongside Rule 3 of the Rules of 2021, which states as follows:
“3.Conditions of criminal liability.- (1) The offences mentioned in sub Sections (i) to (xxv) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act shall be punishable under the Act only if they are:—
(a)committed for disturbing public order; or
(b)committed by causing violence or threat or display of violence, or by intimidation, or coercion or otherwise, either singly or collectively, for the purpose of obtaining any unfair worldly, economic, material, pecuniary or other advantage to himself or to any other person.”
20.The definition of “gang” under Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986 comprises the following essentials;
i.A group of persons i.e., there can be no gang of one person;
ii.The group of persons, acting either individually or collectively, indulges in anti-social activities as enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b);
iii.Indulgence in such anti-social activities is by means of violence, or threat, or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise;
iv.Use of such means is with the object of disturbing public order, or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.
21.It is apparent that the definition of the term “gang” is not attracted by mere association with a miscreant group. For such a group to metamorphize into a gang, it must engage in anti-social activities enumerated in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b), and these must be committed for the object mentioned thereunder. In essence, a group of persons falls within the ambit of Section 2(b) only when the requirements set forth in Rule 3 are satisfied.
22.This Court in Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported as (2022) 19 SCC 57, held that an accused can be termed as “gangster” when he as a member of a gang, has indulged in any of the enumerated anti-social activities, whether by means expressly stated 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. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“25.A group of persons may act collectively or any one of the members of the group may also act singly, with the object of disturbing public order indulging in anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, who can be termed as “gangster”. A member of a “gang” acting either singly or collectively may be termed as a member of the “gang” and comes within the definition of “gang”, provided he/she is found to have indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. xxx
27.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.” (Emphasis supplied)
A Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P., reported as 1987 SCC OnLine All 203, while deciding on the constitutional validity of the Act of 1986 noted that the term “gang” means a group of persons who by violence, or threat, or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise indulge in anti-social activities with the object of disturbing public order or gaining any undue temporal or pecuniary material or other advantage for himself. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“12.Section 2(b) defines the term “Gang” to mean a group of persons who by violence, or threat, or show of violence or intimidation or coercion etc. indulge in anti-social activities with the object of disturbing public order of gaining any undue temporal or pecuniary material or other advantage for himself. S. 2(b) read as a whole necessarily brings in the concept of violence or intimidation or coercion etc. which is resorted to for gaining material advantage. Then we have cl. (c) of S. 2 which defines the word “Gangster”. It means a member or leader or organiser of a group which indulges in the kind of activities set out under the various sub-clauses of Clause (b) of S. 2, by use of violence or threat or show of violence or intimidation etc. Section 3(i) lays down the penalty for being the member or leader or organiser of a group which engages or indulges in the kind of unsocial activities enumerated under Section 2(b) by use of violence etc.” (Emphasis supplied)
A more lucid exposition of the essential requirements was provided in the recent decision of Sukarmpal v. State of U.P., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine All 5848. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“11.From the definition of gang under Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act, it is clear that merely becoming a member of a gang will not be punishable unless the gang falls within the purview of Section 2(b) of Gangster Act and for the punishment of the member or organizer or leader of a gang under the Gangster Act, conditions mentioned in Rule 3 must be fulfilled, which prescribes that offence mentioned in Sub-section (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act must be committed for disturbing public order or committed by causing violence or threat or coercion or otherwise for the purpose of obtaining unfair trustworthy, pecuniary, economic, material or other advantage. Therefore, merely because a person has committed any offence mentioned in Sub-section (i) to (xxv) of sub-section (b) of Section 2 of the Gangster Act will not itself come within the purview of the Gangster Act unless he is member of a gang falling under Section 2(b) of Gangster Act.
12.Even the Rule 4(2) of the Gangster Rules itself provides that, if a member of a gang has committed any offence which comes within the purview of the Act along with any other members then he will be presumed to be a gang. Therefore, punishing a person under the Gangster Act basic condition to be a member of a gang under Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act must be satisfied.
13.Rule 6 of the Gangster Rules also provides that at the time of preparation of gang chart, it must be mentioned that act of gang falls within the purview of Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act. Therefore, it is clear that for bringing an offence within the purview of Gangster Act, it must be committed by a member of a gang for the object mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act by doing the activities mentioned in Sub-Section (i) to (xxv) of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Gangster Act. Therefore, if any offence is committed whether the same falls within the category of Sub-Section (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act or not, that will not come within the purview of the Gangster Act unless the same is done with the object mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)
25.From the above exposition of law, a group of persons may be said to constitute a gang only when they, either singly or collectively, indulge in any of the anti-social activity enumerated in clauses (i) to (xvv) of Section 2(b), by means specified therein, or otherwise, and most importantly, with the object of disturbing public order, or securing any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person.
***
30.The contents of the chargesheet reflect a casual and cavalier attitude on the part of the investigating agency, as it discloses nothing beyond what was already stated in the subject FIR. Further, it remains obscure how the investigating authorities could assert that the offence under Sections 2 and 3 respectively stands ''proved'' against the Appellant sans enclosing any documentary proved (sic proof). We strongly disapprove of this practice and cast it into the cold storage wherein the investigating authority proclaims an offence to be'' proved ''. We would like to remind that the role of investigating agencies is strictly circumscribed to conducting an impartial investigation into the alleged crime; the guilt or the innocence of the Accused is for the trial court to determine.
***
34.Moreover, of the two remaining base FIR's FIR no. 476/2017 and FIR No.170 /2017 respectively, one has already been quashed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 385/2024 vide order dated 24.01.2024. In the other FIR, i.e.,FIR No.170/2017, the date of the incident is conspicuously absent, though the FIR itself was registered on 21.8.2017. The allegations therein pertain to the administration of a school and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to have been committed with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material, or other advantage for the Appellant or any other person.”
The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal (supra) also considered the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Rules, 2021, hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules of 2021''. It was held as under:-
“42.At this stage, it is important to ascertain whether the gang-chart was approved in conformity with the Rules of 2021. The general rules to be followed qua approval of gang-chart have been stipulated in Rule 5 of the Rules of 2021. It reads thus:
“5.General Rules.—(1) To initiate proceedings under this Act, the concerned Incharge of Police Station/Station House Officer/Inspector shall prepare a gang-chart mentioning the details of criminal activities of the gang.
(2)The gang-chart will be presented to the district head of police after clear recommendation of the Additional Superintendent of Police mentioning the detailed activities in relation to all the persons of the said gang.
(3)The following provisions shall be complied with in respect of gang-charts:—
a. The gang-chart will not be approved summarily but after due discussion in a joint meeting of the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police.
b. There may be no gang of one person but there may be a gang of known and other unknown persons and in that form the gang-chart may be approved as per these rules.
c. The gang-chart shall not mention those cases in which acquittal has been granted by the Special Court or in which the final report has been filed after the investigation. However, the gang-chart shall not be approved without the completion of investigation of the base case.
d. Those cases shall not be mentioned in the gang-chart, on the basis of which action has already been taken once under this Act.
e. A separate list of criminal history, as given in Form No.—4, shall be attached with the gang-chart detailing all the criminal activities of that gang and mentioning all the criminal cases, even if acquittal has been granted in those cases or even where final report has been submitted in the absence of evidence.
Along with the above, a certified copy of the gang register kept at the police station shall also be attached with the gang-chart. In addition to the above, the information of crime and gang members mentioned in the gang-chart will also be updated on Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) portal and Crime and Criminal Tracking Network System (CCTNS).”
43.Likewise, Rules 16 and 17 respectively stipulate the manner for approval of gang-chart and the application of independent mind by the competent authorities. The same are quoted below:
“16.Forwarding of Gang-Chart.-The following manner shall be followed in the forwarding of Gang-Chart:
(1)Forwarding of the gang-chart by the Additional Superintendent of Police.-The Additional Superintendent of Police will not only take a quick forwarding action in the case but he will duly peruse the gang-chart and all the attached forms; and when it is satisfied that there is a just and satisfactory basis to pursue the case, only then will he forward the letter along with the recommendation given below on the gang-chart to the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police.
“Thoroughly studied the gang-chart and attached evidence. The basis of action under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 exists. Accordingly, forwarded with recommendation.”
(2)Forwarding of the gang-chart by the district police in-charge.- When the gang-chart along with all the Forms is received by the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police with the clear recommendation of the Additional Superintendent of Police, he will also thoroughly analyze all the facts and when it is confirmed that all the formalities of the Act, have been fulfilled and there is a legal basis for taking action in the case, then he should forward the gang-chart to the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate stating that:
“I have duly perused the gang-chart and attached forms and I am fully satisfied that all the particulars mentioned in the case are correct and there is a satisfactory basis for taking action under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Accordingly, approved.”
(3)Resolution of the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate.- When the gang-chart is sent to the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate along with all the Forms, all the facts will also be thoroughly perused by the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate and when he is satisfied that the basis of action exists in the case, then he will approve the gang -chart stating therein that:
“I duly perused the gang-chart and attached Forms in the light of the evidence attached with the gang-chart, satisfactory grounds exist for taking action under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The gang-chart is approved accordingly.”
It is noteworthy that the words written above are only illustrative. There is no compulsion to write the same verbatim but it is necessary that the meaning of approval should be the same as the recommendations written above and it should also be clear from the note of approval marked.
17.Use of independent mind.—(1) The Competent Authority shall be bound to exercise its own independent mind while forwarding the gang-chart. (2) A pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart should not be signed by the Competent Authority; otherwise the same shall tantamount to the fact that the Competent Authority has not exercised its free mind.”
44.Rule 5(3)(a) stipulates that a gang chart shall be approved only after due discussion in a joint meeting comprising the District Magistrate, Commissioner of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police, and not through a summary process.
45.In the present case, there is nothing on record, even upon a microscopic examination, to indicate that a joint meeting was held prior to approval of the gang-chart. It is apparent that the gang-chart was approved summarily, without any discussion. It was forwarded and approved swiftly, without regard for compliance with the relevant rules. The compliance with Rule 5(3)(a) ought to be evident through the record of minutes of the joint meeting maintained in a register by the District Magistrate.
46.Further, Rule 16 mandates that the Additional Superintendent of Police shall forward the letter, alongwith a recommendation on the gang-chart, to the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police only upon being satisfied that there exists a just and satisfactory grounds to pursue the case. The Additional Superintendent of Police is required to record his recommendation in clear words. It is further incumbent upon the Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to thoroughly analyze all the facts, and only upon being satisfied that all the requirements under the Act are fulfilled and that grounds for taking action exists, he should forward the gang-chart to the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate. The Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police must also record his satisfaction not only qua the particulars of the case but also the grounds to proceed under the Act of 1986.
47.Furthermore, upon receipt of the gang chart along with all the requisite forms, the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate is required to thoroughly examine all the facts afresh and, only upon being satisfied that sufficient grounds exist to proceed, may approve the gang chart. The recorded satisfaction must clearly reflect that the Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate has scrutinized the gang-chart and the accompanying forms in light of the evidence annexed thereto.
48.Once again we are anguished that not only there is no material on record to indicate communication of the satisfaction of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, but also there is no mention as to on which particular date the gang-chart was forwarded by the Additional Superintendent of Police to the Senior Superintendent of Police, and thereafter, to the District Magistrate for approval.
49.Rule 17 mandates that the competent authority must exercise its independent mind while forwarding the gang-chart. It unequivocally prohibits the use of pre-printed gang-charts, thereby making it impermissible for the authority to mechanically affix its signature. The underlying objective of this prohibition is to ensure that the competent authority undertakes a conscious and reasoned application of mind, rather than merely endorsing a pre-prepared document. Such a safeguard is integral to preserving the procedural sanctity of the law and preventing arbitrary or perfunctory approvals that may adversely affect the rights and liberties of individuals.
i. Application of mind and satisfaction of competent authorities
50.We would like to begin with observations of Lord Halsbury in Sharp v. Wakefield, [1891] A.C. 173;
“An extensive power is confided to the justices in their capacity as justices to be exercised judicially; and “discretion” means when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion…; according to law, and not humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular[…]”
(Emphasis is ours)
51.The satisfaction of the approving authority is sine qua non for taking action under the Act of 1986. It is indispensable for the approving authority to record his satisfaction in his own words, to indicate application of mind before approving the gang-chart. The recording of satisfaction need not be exhaustive, because at the stage of approval the investigation under the Act of 1986 is yet to be conducted, but it must be independent, indicating the reasons justifying the exercise of jurisdiction under the Act of 1986.
52.It is equally apposite to mention that the satisfaction must not be a cyclostyle reproduction of the application of mind communicated by the recommending authority. This is only possible when the approving authority meticulously refers to the materials on record on the basis of which he will come to the conclusion about existence of grounds justifying registration of an FIR under the Act of 1986. Needless to say, reiteration of the contents of the FIR or chargesheet does not constitute application of mind.
53.Such satisfaction must stand on certain grounds; it cannot arise in absence of any basis, leaving the liberty of the accused in a precarious position. The basis of satisfaction must bear a reasonable nexus with the facts present before the concerned authority. Thus, the decision of the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities respectively must be at the behest of the application of mind to the relevant and material facts available on record.
54.An independent application of mind cannot be presumed unless it is demonstrable from the record that the approving authority has, in letter and spirit, independently considered all the materials that culminated in the preparation and placement of the gang chart before him. While the correctness of such application of mind may lie beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, the absence thereof certainly does not. A mechanical or routine exercise of power by the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities respectively is impermissible, as it directly impinges upon the liberty of citizens.
55.***
56.Upon perusal of the material on record, more particularly the gang-chart, it is abundantly clear that the said gang-chart was approved by the competent authority merely by affixing his signature on a pre-printed gang-chart, an act that reflects nothing short of a complete non-application of mind and constitutes a violation of Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of 2021 respectively. At the cost of repetition, we would like to reiterate that the recommending, forwarding, and approving authority are not mere rubber-stamping entities.
57.The competent authority forwarded and approved the gang-chart without verifying whether it had been prepared in accordance with the Rules of 2021. Resultantly, the registration of the subject FIR is in complete violation of the procedural safeguards. We are at pains to observe that authorities, entrusted with the solemn duty of safeguarding life and liberty treat it with such casual indifference, truly a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.
58.The High Court of Allahabad in Sanni Mishra v. State of U.P., reported as 2023 SCC OnLine All 2975, came down heavily on the police authorities for the manner in which gang charts were being prepared, as well as the lack of application of mind by the District Magistrate in approving them. The Court laid down specific directions for the preparation of gang-charts prior to registration of an FIR under the Act of 1986. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“22.In view of the above, this court lays down following directions for preparation of gang-chart before lodging FIR under the Gangster Act, 1986:
(i)Date of filing of chargesheet under base case must be mentioned in Column-6 of the gang-chart except in cases under Rule 22(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021.
(ii)While forwarding or approving the gang-chart, competent authorities must record their required satisfaction by writing in clear words, not by signing the printed/typed satisfaction.
(iii)There must be material available for the perusal of the court which shows that the District Magistrate before approving the gang-chart had conducted a joint meeting with the District Police Chief and held a due discussion for invocation of the Gangster Act, 1986.”
(Emphasis supplied)
59.We also deem it necessary to make certain observations regarding the investigation conducted pursuant to the approval of the gang-chart and the registration of the subject FIR under the Act of 1986 respectively. Rule 20 mandates that, during the course of investigation, evidence pertaining to the elements of economic, material, and worldly benefits must be specifically collected. Upon being satisfied that credible, substantial, and logically coherent evidence has been compiled in accordance with the requirements of the Act, the Additional Superintendent of Police shall forward the report to the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police for sanction.
60.In the present case, the sanction order merely states that, based on the examination of the evidence collected, the accused were found to be involved in the commission of offences under the IPC by forming a gang with the objective of deriving economic and monetary benefits, and that a prima facie case exists for filing a chargesheet under Section(s) 2 and 3 of the Act of 1986.”
It is also pertinent to mention here that proceedings in the present case under the Act of 1986 originated in the year 2001, whereas, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Rules came into effect only on 27.12.2021. Therefore, compliance with the Rules of 2021 cannot be demanded retrospectively for procedural steps completed before those Rules came into force. Nevertheless, the principles laid down in Vinod Bihari Lal (supra) concerning the statutory ingredients of the offence and the necessity for genuine application of mind remain relevant to the extent applicable to the present proceedings.
It is apparent that prior to the enforcement of the Rules of 2021, the Circular dated 24.10.2003 and Government Order dated 02.1.2004 was applicable. This Court in Babboo Shah vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors. in Application U/S 482 No.5222 of 2026 (Neutral Citation 2026: AHC-LKO: 64965) decided on 15.09.2026, considered the above Circular and Government Order and held as under:-
“9.Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the present aspect would be governed by the Circular dated 24.10.2003 and Government Order dated 02.01.2004 which were prevalent at the time of preparation of gang chart.
10.Paragraphs - 5 & 6 of Circular dated 24.10.2003 are as follows:-
5- वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक / पुलिस अधीक्षक प्रभारी अपने स्तर पर गिरोह के सदस्यों के आपराधिक विवरण तथा उनके क्रिया कलापों का भली-भांति परीक्षण के उपरांत जिलाधिकारी के साथ विचार-विमर्श करके सूची को अंतिम रूप प्रदान करेंगे।
6- प्रतिवेदन तथा गैंग चार्ट पर वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक / पुलिस अधीक्षक एवं जिलाधिकारी के अनुमोदन के उपरांत अग्रिम कार्यवाही की जाएगी।
11.The aforesaid provision therefore clearly stipulates that the Superintendent of Police or In-charge Senior Superintendent of Police, as the case may be, is required to examine criminal history of the person against whom gang chart is prepared and is required to finalize the same in consultation with the District Magistrate. It has also been stipulated in paragraph - 6 that the aforesaid authorities would thereafter approve the gang chart whereafter the proceedings will be held in terms of statutory provisions.
12.The Government Order dated 02.01.2004 has also indicated certain stipulations in paragraphs 3 & 4 thereafter which are as follows:-
3- वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक / पुलिस अधीक्षक प्रभारी अपने स्तर पर गिरोह के सदस्यों के आपराधिक विवरण तथा उनके क्रिया कलापों का भली-भांति परीक्षण के उपरांत जिलाधिकारी के साथ विचार-विमर्श करके इस सूची को अंतिम रूप प्रदान करेंगे।
4- उक्त आख्या तथा गैंग चार्ट पर वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक/पुलिस अधीक्षक प्रभारी एवं जिलाधिकारी के अनुमोदन के उपरांत अग्रिम कार्यवाही की जाएगी।
13.The aforesaid provisions are also in consonance with Circular dated 24.10.2003 and a conjoint analysis of both the provisions clearly indicates the stipulation that a gang chart is not to be prepared in a cursory manner in view of criminal consequences upon the accused and it is to obviate such a situation that directions had been issued for proper examination of the criminal history of an accused wehereafter it is required to be finalized only after consultation with the District Magistrate concerned.
14.The aforesaid provisions stipulate the aspect of a gang chart being prepared in a careful manner which is evident from the fact that highest district authorities, such as, Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate are required to approve of the gang chart and such preparation and approval thereof is not left at the mercy of subordinate officials. Provisions therefore clearly indicate the importance attached by the police authorities and the State Government to proper deliberation and subsequent preparation of gang chart.”
It is apparent from the above law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal (supra) that the competent authority must exercise its independent mind while forwarding the gang-chart. It unequivocally prohibits the use of pre-printed gang-charts, thereby making it impermissible for the authority to mechanically affix its signature. It is further apparent that the underlying objective of this prohibition was to ensure that the competent authority undertakes a conscious and reasoned application of mind, rather than merely endorsing a pre-prepared document. It is further apparent that it is mandatory for the approval authority to record his satisfaction in his own words, to indicate application of mind before approving the gang-chart. The recording of satisfaction not be exhaustive, because at the stage of approval the investigation under the Act of 1986 is yet to be conducted, but it must be independent, indicating the reasons justifying the exercise of jurisdiction under the Act of 1986. It is further apparent that an independent application of mind cannot be presumed unless it is demonstrable from the record that the approval authority has, in letter and spirit, independently considered all the materials that culminated in the preparation and placement of the gang-chart before him. While the correctness of such application of mind may lie beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, the absence thereof certainly does not. A mechanical or routine exercise of power by the recommending, forwarding, and approving authorities respectively is impermissible, as it directly impinges upon the liberty of citizens.
It is apparent that the gang-chart considers 4 base cases i.e. Case crime no.153 of 2001, 309 of 2001, 199 of 2001 and 260A of 2000 for bringing the accused applicants within the ambit and scope of the Act of 1986, but Case crime no. 153 of 2001, 199 of 2001 and 260A of 2000 have already ended in acquittal by judgment and order dated 17.03.2004, 03.8.2024 and 13.5.2003, respectively.
In case crime No. 309 of 2001, the accused applicants Dinesh @ Tito and Shreekant@ Lale were tried for offence under Section 392, 323/34, 336, 504, 506(2)/34 IPC but by judgment and order dated 16.2.2013 there were only convicted for the offence under Section 323/34, 506(2)/34 and 392 IPC, whereas, they were acquitted of the charge under Section 504 and 336 IPC. The convicted applicants filed Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2013, which was partly allowed on 16.2.2017 by the Additional Session Judge Court No.1, Mathura whereby the conviction of the applicants under Section 323/34 IPC by the trial court was affirmed but they were acquitted of the charge under Section 392 and 506(2)/34 IPC, against which they filed Criminal Revision No. 874 of 2017 Prahlad @ Daroga and 3 others vs. State of U.P., which is pending before this Court.
It is apparent that the accused applicants in out of the 4 base cases that have been mentioned in the gang-chart, have been acquitted in 3 cases, and in one case only i.e. Case crime No. 309 of 2001 applicant Dinesh @ Tito and Shreekant @ Lale have been convicted under Section 323/34 IPC, which has also been challenged before this Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 874 of 2017, which is pending. It is apparent from the decision of the Apex Court in Vinod Bihari Lal (supra) that if an FIR regarding the base case mentioned in the gang-chart has been quashed subsequent to the filing of the chargesheet under the Act of 1986, then, this fact can be considered and is relevant, for quashing the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1986. Although, the Rules of 2021 are not applicable in the instant case, but even Rule 5 of the above Rules of 2021, specifically mentions that the gang-chart shall not mention those cases in which acquittal has been granted or in which the final report has been filed after the investigation, but such acquittal can be considered as part of criminal history of the accused. In view of the above facts, the acquittal of the applicants in three out of four cases mentioned in the gang-chart and conviction in one case only for offence under Section 323/34 IPC has great relevance.
The conviction of applicants Dinesh @ Tito and Shreekant @ Lale for offence under Section 323/34 IPC, is not for offence of such a nature as has been specified in Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986. It does not prima facie prove that such offence was committed with the object of disturbing public order or for gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage by the applicants. It is further pertinent to mention that the applicants Chakravorty, Shankar and Ganesh are not involved in the above offence under Section 323/34 IPC. There is no prima facie evidence on record to conclude that the applicants constituted a gang whose object was of disturbing public order or of gaining any pecuniary advantage to themselves, who indulged in frequent acts of violence, threatened and intimidated the society by committing anti-social activities. In view of the above facts, the ingredients for prosecution under the Act of 1986 are not made out against the accused applicants.
The State has filed its counter affidavit in which a copy of the gang-chart has been annexed, which discloses that the gang-chart has been signed by the SHO, CO, SSP and District Magistrate. The gang-chart does not reflect independent application of mind by the above authorities. The gang-chart has simply been forwarded by one authority to the another, which does not disclose any reason, deliberation or application of mind to the criminal history of the applicants, while approving the gang-chart. The cognizance order on the charge-sheet dated 29.7.2002 by the Special Judge(Gangster Act) Agra also displays total non-application of mind to the aforesaid aspects, which has merely taken cognizance in a routine manner, which is not in consonance with the law enunciated above.
The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Pratap Singh Alias Chinu vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1677 has again considered the provisions of the Act of 1986 and it was held as under:-
''43.......... However, what is obviously absent in the U.P. Act is a provision determining the offence as one created under the Act. After defining gang, which includes commission of the offences listed under sub-clauses (i) to (xxv) and defining gangster as a member or leader or organiser of a gang, the punishment is prescribed for a gangster without an offence being created by statute; which makes the penal act, stillborn. ***
52.Article 20(1) encapsulates the principle of “nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege”, (No crime or punishment can exist without a penal law); there can be no punishment without an offence in law. As we found, the Act of 1986 does not create a crime/offence and it merely defines the status of a person indulging in a crime, specified in the definition clause, as a ‘gangster’ going by the definition of ‘gang’ and ‘gangster’ provided respectively under sub-sections (b) and (c) of Section 2. The status is also determined not by a procedure in the enactment but a prescription made in the Rules. The power to frame Rules is found from the Act, in Section 23, which enables the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act and to provide any contravention of the Rules to be punishable with a term of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, with or without fine, not exceeding Rs. 1,000/-. The Rules provided for a Gang Chart to be prepared by the police, recommended through its hierarchy and approved in a joint meeting of the higher authorities of the Police and the head of the District Administration. The preparation of the Gang Chart and the involvement in a crime, as specified under the clauses of Section 2(b) determines the status of a person, as a gangster, for which punishment is prescribed, as we time and again observed in this very same judgment; without an offence being created. 53.***
54.A ‘gangster’ is defined under the Act and the determination of who a gangster is, for the purpose of punishment, is as prescribed in the Rules, left to the ipsi dixit of the Executive. The creation of crime, or to make an act or omission subject to penal consequences as an offence, is essentially a legislative function and it cannot be thrown away and left to sprout in the thickets of subordinate legislation. As we noticed, the provisions of the Act could lead to a detention of the accused without trial for long, which is akin to a statute enjoining preventive detention. Though preventive detention has been held to be permissible even in the teeth of Article 21, the same is hedged with safeguards, which are held to be sacrosanct and even a minor procedural violation would entail release of the detenu. The safeguards in preventive detention are numerous, since it is the subjective satisfaction of the Administration and the Police that leads to a detention, the period in which such detention continues being the exclusive premise of the State Government, who also has the authority to release the detenu at any point of time. The period provided in which such detention order has to be forwarded to the State Government; the materials to be supplied to the detenu; the right of representation to the various authorities, at every stage, as granted to the detenu; the reference to an Advisory Board constituted by statute and the decision to be arrived there at within a time frame, mitigates and erases to an extent the rigour & malice of subjectivity, which subjectivity pervades a preventive detention order. The subject enactment, the U.P. Act not only permits detention for a period without anything more than the inclusion in a Gang Chart but also enables a trial and punishment on the basis of the very same Gang Chart, in addition to the pre-trial incarceration, but without an offence being created by the Act itself. It is akin to the English proverb: ‘Give a dog a bad name and hang him’.”
From the above law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Pratap Singh (supra) it is evident that the Act of 1986 does not create a crime/offence and it merely defines the status of a person indulging in a crime, specified in the definition clause, as a 'gangster' going by the definition of 'gang' and 'gangster' provided respectively under sub-sections(b) and(c) of Section 2. The preparation of the gangchart and the involvement in a crime, as specified under the clauses of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986 determines the status of a person, as a gangster, for which punishment is prescribed, without an offence being created. It is apparent that merely on the basis of the gangchart prepared under the Act of 1986, no penal offence is made out under the Act. It is apparent that in the above backdrop, the continuation of the pending criminal case against the applicants, would amount to an abuse of the process of law, which would result in undue harassment to them, when there is no material against them warranting their prosecution under the provisions of the Act of 1986.
For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the instant application under Section 482 CrPC is hereby allowed. Consequently, the proceedings of Gangster Special Trial No. 317 of 2002(State of U.P. vs. Dinesh @ Tito and others) arising out of Case crime No.327 of 2001 under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)Act,1986 police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura, including the chargesheet as well as cognizance order dated 29.07.2002, pending before the Court of Special Judge(Gangster Act), Agra, are hereby quashed.