The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 to the appellant's actions, and the court's interpretation of key legal provisions such as 'Gang' and 'Gangster' under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2019 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2009, State v. Niyaz, by the court of Special Judge Gangster/3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“the Act”) and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten year and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated are as follows. PW 1 Bahadur Singh Chauhan, at the relevant time, was working as Station House Officer at Police Station Manglore, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. On 25.07.2007, he orally lodged a report that the appellant along with others has formed a Gang and they would extort money by intimidation, threat and also of violence. They have terrorized the people. No person from the public is ready to give evidence against them. No body can raise voice against them. In the gang chart itself, the details of the cases pending against the appellant are given, which is as hereunder:-

(i) Crime No. 124 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC

(ii) Crime No. 129 of 2007 under Section 392 IPC

(iii) Crime No. 139 of 2007 under Sections 392 IPC

(iv) Crime No. 180 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC

4. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, chargesheet submitted against the appellant.

5. On 15.02.2018, charge under Section 2 read with 3 of the Act was framed against the appellant, to which he denied and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, PW 1 Bahadur Singh Chauhan, Circle Officer, Traffic; PW 2 Ahsan; PW 3 Furkan; PW 4 Imran; PW 5 Naushad Ali; PW 6 Shahjad and PW 7 Inspector (Retd.) Vinod Kumar Sharma.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant would submit that based on four cases, the FIR in the instant case was lodged against the appellant under the provisions of the Act, but it is argued that in Crime No. 139 of 2007, under Sections 392/411 IPC and 180 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, even chargesheet was not submitted against the appellant. He was exonerated. In Crime No. 124 of 2006 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, the motive was personal revenge. It had nothing to do with any anti-social activity of the appellant. Therefore, it is argued that the provisions of the Act are not applicable in the instant case. Learned Amicus Curiae has referred to the statement of PW 7 Vinod Kumar Sharma, the Investigation Officer (“IO”) to argue that even the IO did not receive any written information with regard to the activities that were conducted ever by the appellant. It is argued that the appellant has wrongly been convicted and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the appellant is a Gang Leader. There is nothing personal. He has also looted a tractor along with other members of the Gang, which is basis of Crime No. 129 of 2007, in which, trial is pending. It is argued that the impugned judgment and order is in accordance with law and no interference is warranted.

9. The appellant has been convicted under Section 2 read with Section 3 of the Act. Section 2 of the Act is definition clause. “Gang” is defined under subsection (b) of Section 2 and “Gangster” is defined under sub-section (c) of Section 2, which read as under:-

“2. Definitions. - In this Act,-

(b) "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 antisocial activities, namely-

(i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI or C