The central legal point established in the judgment is that a single alleged anti-social activity does not qualify an individual to be charged as a gangster under the Gangsters Act, emphasizing the requirement of indulging in more than one anti-social activity.

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.;-

By way of this petition, the applicants have sought to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC and to quash the chargesheet dated 10.4.2006 submitted against the applicants in Case Crime No. 36/2006, PS Lansdown, District Pauri Garhwal, on the basis of which the Special Sessions Trial No. 9/2006, State v. Pradeep Kumar & Others has been registered under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short, the Gangsters Act), which is pending trial in the court of Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Pauri Garhwal.

2. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicants and the Brief Holder for the State, it appears that all the three applicants were nabbed at Lansdow Gumkhata Kotdwar Tiraha by the police patrolling party of Lannsdown police station on 21.1.2006 at about 9 pm, when the applicants were allegedly transporting 200 bottles of illicit English liquor for selling the same in the hills of Garhwal. The said liquor was being transported without any license in a white Maruti 1000 Car bearing registration no. DL4CC-3332. The police registered three different cases against all the three applicants, which are as under:

(i) Case Crime No. 35/2006 under Section 60/72 of the Excise Act;

(ii) Case Crime No. 36/2006 under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act;

(iii) Case Crime No. 37/2006 under Section 177/181/192/196/207 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. After the investigation, the police submitted chargesheets against all the applicants in all the three crimes mentioned above. The applicants have filed the instant petition challenging only the chargesheet filed against them under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act.

4. The stand in the petition is that even if the allegations made against the applicants are taken at their face value, there is no scope for holding that the applicants committed an offence punishable under the Gangsters Act. At the most, it may make out a case under the Excise Act. While arguing the case, the learned Counsel for the applicants has put forth very lucid interpretation of the definitions of the words “Gang” and “Gangster” as envisaged in the UP Act No. 7 of 1986 i.e. the Gangsters Act (also applicable to the State of Uttarakhand). It would be relevant to reproduce the definition of the “Gang” as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, which reads as under:

“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-……..”

5. It would also be relevant here to read the definition of “Gangster” as adumbrated in Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act, which is reproduced below:

“gangster” means a member or leader or organizer of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities:”

6. Learned Counsel for the applicants has very strenuously argued that although the applicants were apprehended by the police while they were allegedly transporting 200 bottles of illicit English liquor for selling the same in the hills of Garhwal with the object of gaining pecuniary advantage, nonetheless they cannot be said to be acting by any violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, as has been envisaged in the definition of “gang” given in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. Learned Brief Holder for the State drawn the attention of this Court towards the words/expression “or otherwise” used in this Section after the words “by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion” while defining the word “gang”. Learned Brief Holder intends to argue that the words “or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document