Back
1998 Supreme(All) 22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BINOD KUMAR ROY, P. K. JAIN
SURENDRA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRI. M. W. P. 35 Of 1998
Decided On : 01/12/1998
V.S.Singh
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act, 1986, does not permit a composite trial to avoid prejudice or violation of the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Composite Trial - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 - The court held that the legislature never desired a composite trial under the Act and advisedly tried to avoid prejudice or violation of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the first information report registered under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act, 1986, contending that a composite trial was not permissible due to facing trial for other offences under the same Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the legislature never intended a composite trial under the Act to avoid prejudice or violation of the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issues: The issue revolved around the permissibility of a composite trial under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act, 1986, when the accused was already facing trial for other offences under the same Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, emphasizing that the legislature never intended a composite trial and advisedly tried to avoid prejudice or violation of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that the legislature never desired a composite trial under the Act to avoid prejudice or violation of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
( 2 ) THE solitary submission made by Sri. V. S. Singh learned counsel appearing in support of this petition, is that since the petitioner is already facing trial of commission of offences under the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention) Act, 1986, the impugned first information report registered under the provision of this very act for further offences was/is not permissible and that the only course left for the State is to lead evidence in regard to subsequent acts at the stage of trial of the earlier case.
( 3 ) IN our view sub-section (2) of Section 8 is complete negation of the submission of Mr. Singh, which reads thus :-"if in the course of any trial under this Act of any offence, it is found that the accused has committed any other offence under this Act, or any rule thereunder or under any other law, the Special Court may convict such ch person of such other offence and pass any sentence authorised by this Act or such rule or, as the case may be, such other law, for the punishment thereof. "
( 4 ) IT is clear from a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision that the legislature never desired a composite trial. It merely meant that if an accused has committed any other offence under the provisions of the Act in course of any trial under the Act of any offence the Special Court may convict such person of such other offence. If the subsequent offence under the Act is not registered, investigated, chargesheeted and the accused is not charged accordingly and straightway the trial of the subsequent offence under the Act is clubbed with that of the earlier case in that case an accused may take recourse to prejudice or to the violation of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. We are of the view that the legislature has advisedly tried to avoid such a contingency.
( 5 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
.
