Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. C. AGRAWAL, A. N. VERMA, R. P. SINGH
ASHOK KUMAR DIXIT - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 4562 Of 1986
Decided On : 03/05/1987
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986) against various challenges, including that it was ultra vires the Constitution, that it created offenses that were not previously criminal, and that it violated the right to a fair trial. The Court found that the Act was a valid exercise of the state legislature's power to enact criminal laws and that it did not violate any fundamental rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986) on various grounds, including that it was ultra vires the Constitution, that it created offenses that were not previously criminal, and that it violated the right to a fair trial.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Act was a valid exercise of the state legislature's power to enact criminal laws and that it did not violate any fundamental rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act was ultra vires the Constitution. 2. Whether the Act created offenses that were not previously criminal. 3. Whether the Act violated the right to a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act was a valid exercise of the state legislature's power to enact criminal laws because: a. It was within the legislative competence of the state legislature. b. It did not violate any fundamental rights. 2. The Act did not create offenses that were not previously criminal because: a. The activities that were criminalized by the Act were already prohibited by other laws. b. The Act merely consolidated and strengthened the existing laws. 3. The Act did not violate the right to a fair trial because: a. It provided for a special court to try offenses under the Act. b. It allowed for the accused to be represented by a lawyer. c. It allowed for the accused to cross-examine witnesses.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986).
( 1 ) OUT of the writ petitions challenging the validity of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U. P. Act No. 7 of 1986) three cases, which were argued by Sri Jagdish Swarup, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, and sri Rakesh Dwivedi, are Writ Petition No. 4562 of 1986, Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U. P. Writ Petition No. 2545 of 1986, Hari Singh Thakur v. State of U. P. , and Writ Petition No. 6096 of 1986 Bramha Din v. State of U. P. Apart from these Advocates, others who made their submissions before us were Sri A. N. Srivastava and Sri D. S. Misra. The remaining Advocates did not advance any argument in addition to what bad been argued challenging the validity of the Act by the Advocates aforesaid and they adopted the arguments made by them. We must record our appreciation for the valuable assistance received by the Court from the learned counsel on many issues arising in these cases.
( 2 ) FOR the decision of the points urged, it is not necessary to mention the facts in detail, we have not mentioned the same, excepting referring to those which are salient.
( 3 ) IN Writ Petition No. 4562 of 1986, Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U. P. a first information report was lodged on 17-2-1986 at police station Firozabad, district Agra, against the petitioner, being Crime No. 97 of 1986, under Ss. 2/3 of U. P. Act No. 7 of 1986, on the ground that :"ashok Dixit va Akhilesh va Raja Telang NE APNE APRADHIK KRITIYON SE UTTAR PRADESH GEROH BAND VA SAMAJ VIRODHI KRIYA KALAP NIVARAN ADHYADHESH 1986 KE DHARA DO KI UP DHARA (KHA) 4. 9. 12 KE ANTERGAT APRADH KIYA HAI. "
( 4 ) IN Writ Petition No. 2545 of 1986, Hari Singh Thakur v. State of U. P. a first information report was lodged against the petitioner under S. 2/3 of the said act an the ground that the petitioner was a leader or organizer of a gang. The anti-social activities are enumerated in the first information report. Writ Petition No. 6096 of 1986 has been filed by Bramha Din against State of U. P. for quashing the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Ordinance, 1986 (U. P. Act No. 7 of 1986 ). A first information report against this petitioner had been lodged at the police station Kisunpur, Tehsil Khaga, District Fatehpur, an 10th March, 1986. For the paints urged in this case as well, elucidation of facts is not required.
( 5 ) SRI Jagdish Swarup urged that the Act does not itself create an offence, hence the petitioner is not liable to be prosecuted and convicted for the charge levelled. In this connection, he pointed out that S. 2 (n) deals with anti-social activities, all of which are not necessarily criminal in nature. Consequently, simply because a person, indulges in antisocial activities, he could not be said to have committed any offence.
( 6 ) THE expression "anti-social" conveys an idea of an act on the part of a person which is opposed or hostile to the society. If an act indulged in by a person is anti-social, it is within the power of the legislature to make it an offence. Anti-social elements creating havoc have to be taken care of by law. Lawless multitudes bring democracy and the Constitution into disrepute hold the people at ranson. Hence, the legislature could bring a legislation to punish the elements which gang up and indulge in anti-social activities and provide for a deterrent sentence with a view to curbing this phenomenon.
( 7 ) IN this connection, counsel next urged that it was not within the competence of the legislature to convert a purely civil wrong into a crime and to provide for punishment to a person who indulges in it. An act may be a civil wrong as well as a crime. Furtum in Roman law was wrong, which gave rise to compensation to an injured owner, but the thief could alternatively be punished criminally. An act of conversion could be tort as well as crime of larceny. The distinction in between the two is that crime is a breach of public law and tort a breach of private law. That is one test.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
