The present Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellants Hemu Pant @ Hemu Kalu and Manish @ Kanchu Matiyani challenging their conviction and sentence by the Special Judge (Gangster Act) / Sessions Judge, Nainital in Special Sessions Trial No. 5A of 2007 (State vs. Lakhan Singh Negi & Others) vide judgment and order dated 19.08.2013.

In that trial, the appellants were convicted under Sections 2 /3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Gangster Act"), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, with a default sentence of six months additional imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine.

The State’s case originates from Crime No. 329 of 2007, Police Station Haldwani, wherein the appellants were alleged to be members of a gang engaged in anti-social activities, primarily on the basis of their inclusion in a gang chart and their alleged involvement in previous criminal cases. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the appellants were put to trial. The trial court, upon appreciation of evidence, recorded conviction as aforesaid, which is under challenge in the present appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the same is contrary to law and the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the State has failed to establish the essential ingredients required for bringing the case within the ambit of the Gangsters Act.

Learned counsel for the Appellants contends that the entire case rests upon the gang chart and alleged criminal history of the appellants, without any independent or substantive evidence to demonstrate that the appellants were members of an organized gang or that they were acting in concert in furtherance of any common object.

It is further submitted that no independent public witness has been examined and the State case is based solely on official witnesses, whose testimony, in absence of corroboration, ought to have been scrutinized with greater caution.

It is also argued that mere registration of previous cases or criminal antecedents cannot, by itself, justify conviction under the Gangsters Act unless there is cogent material to establish continuity of unlawful activities and the existence of a gang as defined under the Act. Learned counsel submits that the trial court has failed to appreciate this settled legal position and has recorded conviction on the basis of presumptions and conjectures.

It is further urged that similarly placed co-accused persons have been acquitted, yet the appellants have been convicted without any distinguishing evidence, rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable.

Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the State has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the inclusion of the appellants in the gang chart, coupled with their involvement in criminal cases, clearly establishes their status as members of a gang engaged in anti-social activities.

Learned State counsel submits that the Gangsters Act is a special statute intended to curb organized crime, and the material placed on record sufficiently brings the case within its ambit.

It is further submitted that the testimony of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of their official status, particularly when their evidence is consistent and inspires confidence.

Learned State counsel contends that the trial court has duly considered the oral and documentary evidence and has recorded a well-reasoned finding of conviction, which does not call for interference in appellate jurisdiction.

At the outset, it is to be noted that the conviction of the