Back
1990 Supreme(All) 605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. R. BHARGAVA
AKHILESH KUMARSINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Cri. Rev. 219 Of 1990
Decided On : 10/16/1990
The Special Judge appointed under the U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 has jurisdiction to try offences under the Act and other offences triable by Court of Sessions, following the procedure prescribed for warrant cases by the Magistrate. The provisions of the Act are special and override the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 - Sections 2 (b) (iii)/ (c)/3, 7, 10 (1), (2), (4) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 4, 5, 10 (4), 200, 202 (2) - Summoning Order - Validity - Offence under the Act - Ingredients - Procedure - Powers of Special Judge - Interpretation of Statutes - Special and General Laws.
Fact of the Case:
Revision against summoning order passed by Special Judge, Allahabad under the U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986, holding prima facie sufficient material to summon the revisionists for offences under Sections 2 (b) (iii)/ (c)/3 of the Act and Sections 147, 451, 395, and 506 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
1. Complaint disclosed prima facie offence under Section 3 of the Act - Group of persons acting collectively or individually with the object of gaining undue advantage, creating panic, and terror in public, and occupying immovable property unlawfully constitutes an anti-social activity punishable under the Act. 2. Special Judge has jurisdiction to try offences under the Act and other offences triable by Court of Sessions - Section 10 (4) of the Act requires the Special Judge to follow the procedure prescribed for warrant cases by the Magistrate, overriding the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Omission to record statements of all witnesses under Section 202 (2), Cr. P. C. is not illegal or fatal to the summoning order - Special Judge is not bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the proviso of Section 202 (2) when trying cases under the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint discloses a prima facie offence under the U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986? 2. Whether the Special Judge has jurisdiction to try offences under the Act and other offences triable by Court of Sessions? 3. Whether the omission to record statements of all witnesses under Section 202 (2), Cr. P. C. is illegal and fatal to the summoning order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'gangster' in Section 2 (c) of the Act includes a person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in Section 2 (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbors any person who has indulged in such activities. 2. Clause (iii) of Section 2 (b) of the Act defines 'anti-social activities' as occupying or taking possession of immovable property otherwise than in accordance with law, or setting up false claims for title or possession of immovable property. 3. The complaint alleged that the revisionists and their associates forcibly occupied rooms in the complainant's house, looted cash and goods, extended threats, and created panic and terror, which prima facie constitutes an offence under Section 3 of the Act. 4. Section 10 (4) of the Act empowers the Special Judge to try offences under the Act and other offences triable by Court of Sessions, following the procedure prescribed for warrant cases by the Magistrate. 5. The provisions of the Act are special and override the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the mandatory requirement to record statements of all witnesses under Section 202 (2) in cases triable by Court of Sessions.
Final Decision: Revision dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against summoning order dated 8th November, 1988, passed by Special Judge, Allahabad appointed and constituted under U. P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities Prevention Act, 1986, holding that primafacie there are sufficient material to summon the revisionists under the provisions of Section 3 of the U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (hereinafter called the Act) and that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the revisionists for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 451, 395 and 506, I. P. C. and summoning the revisionists for offences under Sections 2 (b) (iii)/ (C)/3 of the Act and Sections 145,451,395 and 506 I. P. C.
( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this revision are that opposite party No. 2 Ramadevi is wife of one Raj Roop Narain Lal Srivastava; an ex-civil employee of the army. Opposite party No. 2 Ramadevi filed criminal complaint against the revisionists and one Dharmendra Nath Singh in the court of the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Allahabad for offences under Sections 2 and 3 of the Act and Sections 395, 450, 451, 452,147 and 148, I. P. C. She alleged that her husband retired in 1988 and has been in and bed ridden. She and her family have been residing in House No. 95/112, Sarvodaya Nagar, Allahpur, Allahabad. Construction of this house was completed in 1978. It contains small and big rooms numbering in all twenty one. She further alleged that on 1st January, 1987 revisionist No. 1 Akhilesh Kumar Singh took a room of the said house from her on monthly rent of Rs. 140/- for fifteen days and promised to vacate the room after the expiry of that period. But after expiry of the period he went out placing his lock on the room. After two months he returned with revisionists No. 2 and 3, namely, Suresh Kumar Singh and Shailesh Kumar Singh and one Dharmendra Nath Singh. When she asked Akhilesh Kumar Singh to vacate room he insisted that his father died and he was under trouble, hence he may be permitted to live for further fifteen days. He asked for three further rooms for fifteen days only for his other three companions whom he described as his guests; After expiry of fifteen days from that, when Akhilesh Kumar Singh and his three companions did not vacate the rooms she insisted upon them to vacate the room. Upon this all the four of them started hurling abuses, extended threats of death and declared that they would never vacate the rooms. On 10th February, 1987 she lodged written report of this incident at police outpost, Allahpur. She submitted applications at the same police outpost on 24th March, 20th April and 10th May, 1987. But the police of the police outpost did not take any action. On 11th August, 1987 Akhilesh Kumar Singh gave in writing to the Incharge, police outpost, Allahpur that he and his co-accused would vacate the house within two months. His co-accused also promised to vacate the house within a two months. On 10th October, 1987 she asked the revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh to vacate the house but they abused her and extending threats of death they drove her away. On the same day she gave written information of this incident to Incharge, police outpost, Allahpur. On 3rd November, 1987 at about 12 in the night revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh along with fifteen or twenty unsocial elements came. They broke opened locks of eight rooms of the house, looted a sum of Rs. 1100/- belonging to her, burnt the books of her son Radha Krishan and further looted electrical goods, furniture jewellery etc. described in the list. Intimation of this incident was given to Police Control Room. She submitted information of the incident to superintendent of police, city and Incharge of police outpost George Town on the morning of 4th November, 1987. But on this police took no action. On 10th December, 1987 revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh forcibly occupied her two rooms. On 10th December, 1987 and 12th February, 1988, sh
