JUDGMENT :

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit in the Court today which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 26.07.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.0303 of 2023, under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act., Police Station- Kila, District- Bareilly.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of the Gangsters Act have been invoked against the petitioner on the basis of two base cases. However, the investigation in the base cases was not complete. He has also vehemently argued that Rule 5 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules have not been complied with. The first information report is, therefore, illegal and is liable to be set aside.

5. He has also submitted that the papers which were required to be forwarded to the approving authority lack the certified copy of the charge-sheets of base cases and the recovery memos. These were not sent along with the documents, for approval. He submits that a certified copy means a copy issued from the Court. Since, the charge-sheet had not been submitted in court, no certified copy could have been issued or annexed with the gang chart at the point in time it was approved by the approving authority.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also paced reliance on the judgments of this being Master @ Ramzan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Home and others 2020 0 Supreme (All) 855 and Ankit Sharma @ Ankit Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LawSuit(All) 1595 in support of his submissions.

7. Learned AGA has opposed the writ petition and has stated that the gang chart, copy whereof is annexed with the supplementary affidavit, specifically mentions two base cases against the petitioners being Case Crime No. 88 of 2022 under Section 420 IPC, Police Station-Kila, District-Bareilly wherein the charge-sheet No. 151A/2022 is dated 12.06.2023 and the other base case is Case Crime No. 89 of 2022 under Section 3/4 of the Gambling Act, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly wherein charge-sheet No. 152A of 2022 is also dated 12.06.2023. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner lacks merit.

8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Primarily, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the words "certified copy" used in Rule 10(1) means a certified copy issued by the Court. It is, therefore, the contention that till such time the charge-sheet in the base cases has not been filed before the Court, no action on its basis can be taken under the provisions of the Gangsters Act. This is the also import of the two judgments that have been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. The import of words certified copy have been considered by this Court in the judgment dated 02.05.2023 in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 19638 of 2022 Binni Lala @ Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. State of U.P and others. It has been held as follows:

"The term certified copy has not been defined either in the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code or the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act or the Rules framed thereunder.

"The definition of the phrase as per the Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2012, as follows:-

Certified copy: A copy of a document signed and certified as a true copy by the officer to whose custody the original in entrusted. A certified copy of a deed imports that it is an office copy taken from the record of deeds and certified by the proper officer."

The Law Lexicon also states that a copy, which is certified to be true in terms of Section 76 of the Evidence Act is also a certified copy. It also means an authenticated copy and a certificate issued by an officer is only a written declarati