Hon’ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Srivastava, advocate holding brief of Sri Mazhar Ullah, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A.

2. Applicants are accused in S.T. No. 435 of 2009, State v. Mahmood and others, under Sections 302/120B I.P.C. P.S. Milak Khanam, District Rampur, pending before Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C-3, Rampur. Aforesaid Session Trial relates to Crime No. 70 of 2009. An order dated 14.12.2010 has been challenged in this 482 Application by the accused-applicants, Mahmood and others whereby the trial Judge has refused to stay the proceedings of the trial which is for offences under Sections 302/120B I.P.C.

3. The grievance of the accused-applicants is that in view of Section 12 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the act), the trial of other cases should be stayed as the trial under the Gangsters Act has to be given preference over any other trial, which is pending in other Court, except the Court of Special Judge, Gangsters Act.

4. I have perused Section 12 of the Act. For a ready reference, the aforesaid section is reproduced herein under :

“Trial by Special Courts to have precedence.—The trial under this act of any offence by Special Court shall have precedence over the trial of any other case against the accused in any other Court (not being a Special Court) and shall be concluded in preference to the trial of such other case and accordingly the trial of such other case shall remain in abeyance.”

A bare reading of the aforesaid statutory provision reveals that the legislative intent was that the trial under the Gangsters Act should not get undue delayed because of pendency of other cases in other Courts than the Court of Special Judge Gangsters Act. This does not mean that trial of other offences must be kept in abeyance till conclusion of trial under the Gangsters Act. What legislative intent is that the dates fixed in the other trials and in the case under the Gangsters Act should not clash with each other so that the trial under the Gangsters Act is not got unduly delayed or hampered with. It was not the intention of the legislature that if a person is required in other cases of such serious nature as murder, dacoity, loot and rape etc, then the trial for those offences should not proceed or be stayed till conclusion of trial under Gangsters Act. The legislative intent, in this respect seems to be clear without any ambiguity that cases in which Gangsters Act accused are required if are pending in other Courts, then dates can be fixed on those trials when the dates under the Gangsters Act are not fixed.

5. The statutory provision has to be interpreted in such a way which fosters the legislative intent. Principle of harmonious construction of statute has also to be applied. Section 309 Cr.P.C. provides that if examination of witness has been started, the Session trial has to be conducted on day to day basis. Section 309 Cr.P.C. has to be read in conjunction with Section 12 of the Act and therefore, filling of the gray area, the legislative intent seems to be only this much that trial under the Gangsters Act, should not be hampered because of the dates fixed in the other trials. It is not the intention that the trial of all other offences must be stayed till conclusion of trial under the Gangster Act because that will be against the public policy, as well as against the statutory provision. Cases which are pending against the accused persons for other offences, except under the Gangsters Act, can be fixed and can be decided on those dates where the proceedings under the Gangsters Act has not to be taken.

6. Analyzing from another aspect of the mooted question, it transpires that accused under the Gangsters Act are normally involved in many offences. Gangsters Act has been enacted to curb the activities of Gangsterism. These activities are conducted by those people, who have got criminal proclivities and indulge in