Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 209
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2010
SOMNATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WITH Criminal Jail Appeal No. 56 of 2010
RAJU MANDAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WITH Criminal Jail Appeal No. 57 of 2010
SHAKUR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WITH Criminal Jail Appeal No. 58 of 2010
ZAHID – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WITH Criminal Jail Appeal No. 59 of 2010
JALEEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WITH Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2010
RAKESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WITH Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 2010
JALIL & ORS. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
Decided on : 10.06.2013
For the Appellants :Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate
For the Appellant :Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Amicus Curiae
For the Appellant :Mr. S.C. Tyagi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Danu, Brief Holder
Headnote:(A) Gangster Act, Sec. 2, Clause (c) — Gangster — Definition of — A member or leader or organizer of a gang including abettor of the crime and person who had assisted in the activities of crime. (Para 19)
(B) Gangster Act, Sec. 2, Clause (b) and (c) — ‘Gang’ and ‘Gangster’ — Undisputedly, as appellants were already held guilty for anti-social activities and crime against the society — Therefore, they fall within the definition ‘Gang’ and Gangster’ as defined u/sec. 2 Cl. (b) & (c), Gangster Act. (Para 21)
(C) Gangster Act, Sec. 3, 2(c) — If an accused is proved to be a gangster, as defined u/s 2(c) of the Gangster Act — Then he is liable to be convicted — Since appellants were found involved in anti-social activities and crime against the society — Therefore, they fall within the definition of ‘gangster’ — No interference — Appeals dismissed.
(Para 22)
¼v½ xSaxLVj vf/kfu;e] /kkjk 2 ¼okD;ka’k c½ & xSaxLVj & ifjHkk”kk & ,d lnL;] ljnkj ;k xSax dk laxVd o vijk/k ds fy, nq”izsfjr djus okyk vkSj og O;fDr ftlus vijkfèkd xfrfof/k;ksa esa lg;ksx fn;kA ¼izLrj 19½
¼c½ xSaxLVj vf/kfu;e] /kkjk 2 ¼okD;ka’k b vkSj c½ & ^xSasx* vkSj ^xSaxLVj* & ;g fookfnr ugha fd vihykfFkZ;ksa dks igys gh xSj lkekftd xfrfof/k;ksa esa vkSj vijk/k esa nks”kh ik;k x;k Fkk & blfy, os xSax vkSj xSaxLVj dh ifjHkk”kk ds vUrxZr vkrs gSa tSlk fd ifjHkkf”kr u/s 2 Cl. (b) & (c), Gangster Act. ¼izLrj 21½
¼l½ xSaxLVj vf/kfu;e] /kkjk 3] 2¼c½ & vxj vfHk;qDr dks u/s 2(c), Gangster Act xSaxLVj ik;k tkrk gS & rc og vkjksfir gksus ;ksX; & pw¡fd vihykfFkZ;ksa dks xSj lkekftd xfrfof/k;ksa vkSj yksd fo#) vijk/kksa esa lfEefyr ik;k x;k Fkk & blfy, og xSaxLVj dh ifjHkk”kk ds vUrxZr & dksbZ gLr{ksi ugha & vihy [kkfjtA ¼izLrj 22½
Per : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J.
1. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that appellants Shakoor, Zaheed and Jalil have preferred appeals through Jail Authorities bearing CRJA Nos. 57, 58, 59 of 2010 and have also filed appeal through their Advocate Ms. Neetu Singh bearing CRLA No. 178 of 2011. This Court, vide order dated 07.05.2013 passed in CRJA No. 56 of 2010, was pleased to appoint Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for appellant Raju Mandal. Appellant Rakesh has preferred criminal appeal no. 255 of 2010 through his Advocate Mr. S.K. Shandilya and appellant Somnath has preferred criminal appeal no. 168 of 2010 through his Advocate Mr. S. C. Tyagi.
2. All these appeals are arising out of judgment and order dated 31.07.2010 passed by Special Judge, (Gangster Act), Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2009 whereby appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Gangster Act’) and were sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment for two months.
3. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that after approval of Gang Charts by District Magistrate, an FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 113 of 2008 at police station Jwalapur, District Haridwar against accused appellants Raju Mandal, Jaleel, Zahid, Shakur, Somnath, Rakesh under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act stating that accused persons formed a gang and were involved in violence by committing loot, dacoity, murder and they created an atmosphere of terror in society, consequently, nobody dared to lodge any complaint against them; nobody came forward to depose against them. A number of criminal cases were registered against the accused persons mainly under Section 412, 395 IPC.
4. As per the Gang Chart following cases were registered against the accused, details whereof read as under:
i. Against appellant Raju Mandal Case Crime No. 494/2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 578/2007 under Section 399, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 579/2007 under Section 25 of the Arms Act; Case Crime No. 580/2007 under Section 25 of the Arms Act; Case Crime No. 581/2007 under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act; Case Crime No. 582 of 2007 under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act; Case Crime No. 583 of 2007 under 14 of the Foreign Act; Case Crime No. 110/2007 under Section 395, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 169 of 2007 under Section 395, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 179 of 2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 230/2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 308/2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 583/ 2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC were registered.
ii. Against appellant Jaleel Case Crime No. 494/2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 578/2007 under Section 399, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 580/2007 under Section 25 of the Arms Act; Case Crime No. 583 of 2007 under 14 of the Foreign Act; Case Crime No. 110/2007 under Section 395, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 169 of 2007 under Section 395, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 179 of 2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 230/2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 308/2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 583/ 2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC were registered.
iii. Against appellant Zahid Case Crime No. 494/2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 578/2007 under Section 399, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 581/2007 under Section 25/4 of the Arms Act; Case Crime No. 583 of 2007 under 14 of the Foreign Act; Case Crime No. 110/2007 under Section 395, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 169 of 2007 under Section 395, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 179 of 2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 230/2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC; Case Crime No. 308/2007 under Section 395, 397, 412 IPC
