# Anil Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 552
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15515 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49474
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Section 3 (1) - The U.P. Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 - Rule 5(3) (c) - gang-chart
shall not be approved without the
completion of investigation of the base
case, Rule 10 - certified copy of the
charge-sheet must be annexed with
the gang chart , Rule 22 - Criminal
history not mandatory and sections of
the Act can be imposed in the course of
investigation - filing or non-filing of
the
charge-sheet
in
the
court
concerned before preparation of the
gang
chart
is
immaterial
-
only
requirement is that the charge-sheet
should be available with the concerned
authority before approval of the gangchart.(Para - 8)
12 All. Anil Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
553
FIR filed against several individuals - petitioner
is a gang leader - serious allegations about
fraudulent distribution of essential/fair price
commodities
by
adopting
mal-practices
-
fraudulently verify farmer registrations using
digital signatures - others are active members of
gang - investigation against petitioner complete
- certified copy of gang chart not annexed -
supplementary charge-sheet submitted in the
main charge-sheet against petitioner. (Para -
3,5, 8)

HELD:-Rule 5 (3) (c) of the Rules, 2021 states
that gang-chart approval requires base case
investigation, and any interpretation of Rule 10
would frustrate the aims and object of the
Gangster Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Facts of the case regarding relevant dates of
filing of charge-sheet; supplementary chargesheet and initiation of proceedings for approval
of the gang chart do not violate any provision of
the Act and the Rules. (Para - 11)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,774 of 43,511. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39774 for what follows._

552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
guidelines in executing the work, the
release of funds without according proper
sanction, and alleged illegal gains by the
petitioners in collusion with each other.
Consequently, a recommendation was made
for the registration of the FIR.

36. As a result, the impugned FIR was
registered by the Block Development
Officer
based
on
the
report
dated
19.08.2023.

37. Upon hearing both parties and
examination of the reports, it is evident that
the Project Director conducted an inquiry
before the registration of the impugned FIR
against the petitioners. There are allegation
against all petitioners for creation of forged
and fabricated documents to misappropriate
of an amount of Rs. 15,57,790, causing a
financial loss to the public exchequer. A
plain reading of the impugned FIR's
contents
indicates
a
prima
facie
commission of a cognizable offences at its
face value against the petitioners. At the
first instance, the allegations are of creating
forged documents for approval, violating
rules in the execution of work, and
releasing
funds
without
proper
authorization make sense.

38. In light of the facts and
circumstances, the petitions bearing the
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14349 of
2023,
Criminal
Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.14783 of 2023 and Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No.14459 of 2023 are devoid of
merits and are therefore dismissed.

39.

The
observations
made
hereinabove shall not affect the outcome of
the investigation of the instant case; they
are made for the purpose of disposing of
the captioned petitions. The Investigating
Officer is expected to conduct a prompt
investigation in the interest of State's
policy dealing in corruption cases.

40. The Registrar (Compliance) of
this court is directed to do the needful at the
earliest for compliance of the terms of the
order.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 552
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15515 of 2023

Anil Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kartikeya Saran, Sri Vinayak Ranjan

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Section 3 (1) - The U.P. Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 - Rule 5(3) (c) - gang-chart
shall not be approved without the
completion of investigation of the base
case, Rule 10 - certified copy of the
charge-sheet must be annexed with
the gang chart , Rule 22 - Criminal
history not mandatory and sections of
the Act can be imposed in the course of
investigation - filing or non-filing of
the
charge-sheet
in
the
court
concerned before preparation of the
gang
chart
is
immaterial
-
only
requirement is that the charge-sheet
should be available with the concerned
authority before approval of the gangchart.(Para - 8)
12 All. Anil Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
553
FIR filed against several individuals - petitioner
is a gang leader - serious allegations about
fraudulent distribution of essential/fair price
commodities
by
adopting
mal-practices
-
fraudulently verify farmer registrations using
digital signatures - others are active members of
gang - investigation against petitioner complete
- certified copy of gang chart not annexed -
supplementary charge-sheet submitted in the
main charge-sheet against petitioner. (Para -
3,5, 8)

HELD:-Rule 5 (3) (c) of the Rules, 2021 states
that gang-chart approval requires base case
investigation, and any interpretation of Rule 10
would frustrate the aims and object of the
Gangster Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Facts of the case regarding relevant dates of
filing of charge-sheet; supplementary chargesheet and initiation of proceedings for approval
of the gang chart do not violate any provision of
the Act and the Rules. (Para - 11)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Narender Kumar Vs St. of U.P. Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition No. 15487 of 2023

2. Nelson Motis Vs U.O.I., AIR 1992 SC 1981

3. St. of U.P. Vs Vijay Anand Maharaj, AIR 1963
SC 946

4. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd Vs
Custodian of Vested Forests, AIR 1990 SC 1747

5. Raghunath Rai Bareja Vs P.N.B., (2007) 2
SCC 230

6. Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills & Ginning
Factory Vs Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha, AIR
1961 SC 1596

7. Motiram Ghelabhai (deceased L.R.) Vs Jagan
Nagar (deceased L.Rs.) & ors. , AIR 1985 SC 709

8. Sundaram Pillai Vs Pattabiraman, (1985) 1
SCC 591

9. Shraddha Gupta Vs The St. of U.P., Crl.
Appeal No. 569-570 of 2022
10. Ambuj Parag Dubey & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
two ors.

11. Ashok Kumar Dixit Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1987
(All) 235 (All HC, FB)

12. Verneet Kumar Vs St. of U.P. 2009 (1) ALL
CrJ 377

13. Virendra Kasaudhan Vs St. of U.P., (2023)
SCC OnLine All 1431

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
&
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Kartikeya Saran,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents, and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred with the prayer to quash the
impugned First Information Report dated
14.09.2023 registered as FIR No. 0171 of
2023, under Section 3 (1) of the U.P.
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station-
Gyanpur, District- Bhadohi and for a
direction to the police not to arrest the
petitioner in pursuance of the impugned
FIR.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
impugned FIR has been lodged against
Anil Mishra, Ashish Mishra, Shivam
Mishra, Govind Mishra, Pramod Yadav,
Shubham Pandey, Santosh Gupta, Kanhiya
Jaiswal and Akash ji Baranwal. As per the
allegations in the FIR, informant received
information that Anil Mishra is a gang
leader and Ashish Mishra, Shivam Mishra,
Govind Mishra, Pramod Yadav, Shubham
Pandey, Santosh Gupta, Kanhiya Jaiswal
and Akash Ji Baranwal are the active
members of a Gang. The gang of Anil
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mishra gets financial and material benefit
by fraudulently verifying the registration of
farmers by resetting the password of
Departmental Login Id (District Food and
Civil Supplies department) of District Food
and Marketing Officer, Bhadohi and by resetting the password of departmental Login
ID (District Food and Civil Supplies
department)
of
Additional
District
Magistrate (Judicial), Additional District
Magistrate of Bhadohi Gyanpur Aurai and
has used the digital signatures.

4. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that he has been exonerated
in Case Crime No. 68 of 2023, under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S.
Aurai, District Bhadohi, wherein the
charge-sheet dated 25.06.2023 has also
been submitted against other co-accused
persons, and as such the said case cannot be
considered for the purpose of invoking the
provisions of U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He
next submitted that the Act has been
invoked only on the basis of sole case. It is
submitted that no charge sheet has been
filed in Case Crime No. 240 of 2022 and
the gang chart has been approved without
filing of the charge sheet in the said case
and without application of mind. He
submitted that the question answer dated
18.09.2023, clearly reflects that till that
date no charge sheet has been filed in the
court. It is submitted that therefore, there is
violation of Rule 5(3) (c) of the U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti
Social
Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter refer
to as 'Rules') and that of Rule 10 of the
Gangster Rules, which provides that
certified copy of the charge-sheet must be
annexed with the gang chart, which has not
been annexed in the present case.

5. Learned A.G.A., on instructions,
submitted that after completion of the
investigation against the petitioner, a
supplementary charge-sheet no. 98A was
submitted on 08.08.2023 in the main
charge-sheet dated 25.06.2023 against the
petitioner, a duly attested copy whereof has
been supplied by the learned A.G.A., which
is taken on record. He further submits that
the proceedings of approval of the gang
chart was initiated on 19.08.2023, much
after filing of supplementary charge-sheet
no. 98A dated 08.08.2023, after completion
of the investigation as required under Rule
5(3) (c) of the Gangster Rules, 2021. He
highlighted that certified copy of the gang
chart has also not been annexed to suppress
this fact.

6. A bare glance over the Rule 5(3)(c)
of the Rules, 2021 would clearly disclose
that it provides that "the gang chart shall
not be approved without completion of the
investigation of the base case".

7. Rule 5 (3)(c), Rules 10 and Rule 22
of the Rules, 2021 are quoted as under:

"5. General Rules- (1) .....

(3)......

(c) The gang-chart shall not
mention those cases in which acquittal has
been granted by the Special Court or in
which the final report has been filed after
the investigation. However, the gang-chart
shall
not
be
approved
without
the
completion of investigation of the base
case.

(Emphasis supplied)

10. Records of Base Cases- (1)
Along with gang chart, the certified copy of
12 All. Anil Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
the charge-sheet and recovery memo shall
be attached compulsorily."

22.
Criminal
history
not
mandatory and sections of the Act can be
imposed in the course of investigation- (1)
A single act/omission will also constitute
an offence under the Act, and First
Information Report may be registered on
the basis of a single case i.e., it is not
mandatory that any criminal history must
be recorded and alleged before registering
an offence under the Act.

(2) The Act may also come into
force on a single prosecution in certain
class of cases, such as -

if it appears that the gang has
committed a single offence mentioned in
Sections 302, 376D, 395, 396 or 397 of the
Penal Code out of the offences mentioned
in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Section 2
of the Act or sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (v), (vii),
(x), (xii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx)
or (xxi) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act,
which is presently under investigation, and
the offence under this Act is being proved
by collected evidence, then along with the
criminal act under consideration, the gangchart should also be approved by the
concerned Commissioner of Police/District
Magistrate involved in the investigation of
the said offence and the provisions of the
Act can be imposed while investigating
both the offences together in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. Further, the
charge-sheet can be sent to the Special
Court constituted under the Act."

(Emphasis supplied)

8. The present petitioner is a gang
leader as well and there are serious
allegations about fraudulent distribution of
the essential/fair price commodities by
adopting mal-practices. There is allegation
that the petitioner was clandestinely using
the log-in ID of the District Food
Distribution Officer without his knowledge
and consent, and was also using fake digital
signature of ADM (Judicial), Bhadohi to
derive undue benefits. As admitted in para
27 of the petition, he has criminal history of
seven cases as well.

9. In our recent judgment dated
04.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 15487 of 2023 (Narender
Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) we have dealt
with the relevant law extensively, para 10,
11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30 whereof are
reproduced as under:-

"10.
In
Criminal
Misc.
Application U/S 372 Cr.P.C. (Leave to
Appeal) No.329 of 2012 (Prithvi Singh v.
State of U.P.), decided on 21.4.2022, this
Court has considered the principles of
statutory interpretation extensively, para
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22 and 40 whereof are reproduced as
under:

"10. Before proceeding further it
would be appropriate to take note of the
principles of statutory interpretation as the
decision of the question involved in the
present case is directly dependant on the
interpretation of the statutory provisions.
For this purpose we have taken help of the
book
''Principles
of
Statutory
Interpretation' ''13th Edition, 2012' written
by Justice G. P. Singh (Former Justice of
M. P. High Court).

11. One of the main basic
principles of interpretation is that if
meaning of words of statute are plain,
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
effect must be given to it irrespective of
consequences.

12. In Nelson Motis vs. Union of
India, AIR 1992 SC 1981 it has been
observed that when the words of a statute
are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they
are reasonably susceptible to only one
meaning, the courts are bound to give
effect to that meaning irrespective of
consequences.

14. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs.
Vijay Anand Maharaj, AIR 1963 SC 946 it
was held that when a language is plain and
unambiguous and admits of only one
meaning no question of construction of a
statute arises, for the Act speaks for itself.

15. It is also a guiding rule of
interpretation that language of the statute
should be read as it is.

16. In Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg.
(Wvg.) Co. Ltd vs. Custodian of Vested
Forests, AIR 1990 SC 1747 it was observed
that the intention of the legislature is
primarily to be gathered from the language
used, which means that attention should be
paid to what has been said as also to what
has not been said.

17. In Raghunath Rai Bareja vs.
Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230
Supreme Court held that departure from
the literal rule should be done only in very
rare cases and ordinarily there should be
judicial restraint in this connection.

18. Insofar as rule of ''regard to
consequences' is concerned, the aforesaid
book clearly provides that this rule has no
application when the words are acceptable
to only one meaning and no alternate
construction
is
reasonably
open.
A
reference may be made in this regard with
citations noted above which provides that if
meaning is plain, effect must be given to it
irrespective of consequences.

19. In Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil
Mills and Ginning Factory vs. Subhash
Chandra Yograj Sinha, AIR 1961 SC 1596
it was observed that as a general rule, a
''proviso' is added to an enactment to
qualify or create an exception to what is in
the enactment, and ordinarily, a ''proviso'
is not interpreted as stating a general rule.

20. However, in Chapter 3 of the
aforesaid book at page 206 it has been
observed that the insertion of a ''proviso' by
the draftsman is not always strictly adhered
to its legitimate use and at times a section
worded as a ''proviso' may wholly or partly
be in substance a fresh enactment adding to
and not merely excepting something out of
or qualifying what goes before. A large
number of rulings, including the English
Law, have been noted in support of the
aforesaid observation. A reference in this
regard may be made to one of such rulings,
namely, Motiram Ghelabhai (deceased
L.R.) vs. Jagan Nagar (deceased L.Rs.) and
others, AIR 1985 SC 709.

21. Purposes of a ''proviso' were
aptly summarised in Sundaram Pillai vs.
Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591, wherein
it was observed that by and large a proviso
may serve the following four different
purposes:-

"(1)
qualifying
or
excepting
certain
provisions
from
the
main
enactment;

(2) it may entirely change the
very concept of the intendment of the
enactment
by
insisting
on
certain
12 All. Anil Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
557
mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in
order to make the enactment workable;

(3) it may be so embedded in the
Act itself as to become an integral part of
the enactment and thus acquire the tenor
and colour of the substantive enactment
itself; and

(4) it may be used merely to act
as an optional addenda to the enactment
with the sole object of explaining the real
intendment of the statutory provision."

(emphasis supplied)

22. However, it was observed in
the aforesaid book that the above summary
cannot, however, be taken as exhaustive
and ultimately a ''proviso' like any other
enactment ought to be construed upon its
terms.

40. As already noticed, the
golden rule of interpretation is that if the
meaning of words of a statute are plain,
effect must be given irrespective of the
consequences. We may refer to the
judgments of the Supreme Court in cases of
Nelson Motis (supra), Kanailal Sur (supra),
Vijay Anand Maharaj (supra), Gwalior
Rayan Silk (supra), Raghunath Rai Bareja
(supra).

11.
Applying
the
aforesaid
principles there can be no two opinions
that the words "the gang chart shall not be
approved
within
the
completion
of
investigation of the base case" are hardly
open for any other interpretation as the
words are plain and unambiguous and
admits only one meaning and should be
read as it is. Once this statutory mandate is
taken as such the requirement of 'certified
copy' of gang chart (or recovery memo)
can safely be held or interpreted to be only
'procedural' in nature and only mandate of
Rule 10 of the Rules would be that a copy
certified by any competent person (which is
being discussed in subsequent paragraphs)
shall be attached with the gang chart. Any
other interpretation of Rule 5(3)(c) read
with Rule 10 of the Rules would frustrate
the purpose and object of enactment of the
Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

12. We, therefore, find that as the
only requirement of law as per the above
quoted Rule 5(3)(c) is that there should be
a completion of the investigation of the
base case before approval of the gangchart, and the same had clearly been done
in the present case. Therefore, filing or
non-filing of the charge-sheet in the court
concerned before preparation of the gang
chart is immaterial and that the only
requirement is that the charge-sheet should
be available with the concerned authority
before approval of the gang-chart.

13. In the present case of the
petitioner herein Narender Kumar, at the
cost of repetition, it is highlighted that date
of completion of investigation is 6.2.2023;
the process of approval of the gang chart
started on 17.3.2023 and the approval of
the
gang-chart
was
given
by
the
Commissioner of Police, Gautam Budh
Nagar on 20.3.2023, hence there is no
violation of Rule 5(3)(c) of the Rules.

14. Insofar as violation of Rule
10 of the Gangster Rules is concerned,
submission is that there should exist a
certified copy of the charge-sheet at the
time of making draft gang chart. We find
that the charge-sheet has been prepared by
the
Investigating
Officer
under
his
signatures and the investigation had
already been concluded before preparation
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the gang chart. We are of the opinion
that there should be a copy duly certified
by the Officer only, who is having control
over the document and it is no where
required that it has to be a certified copy
having been issued by the court of law.
Rule 10 of the Rules, 2021 nowhere says
that copy of the charge-sheet has to be a
copy certified by the Court or a certified
copy of the charge-sheet issued by the
Court. Submission of charge-sheet in the
Court is not a prerequisite of Rule 10 of the
Rules.

15. As the intention of the
legislature is that the provision of Gangster
Act can be imposed after completion of the
investigation, therefore, it can be safely
concluded that the copy of the charge-sheet
or the recovery memo duly certified by the
competent authority or the authority having
control
over
such
document
i.e.
Investigating Officer are sufficient for the
said purpose. In this regard, a reference
may be made to Rule 22 of the Rules, 2021,
also heading whereof itself provides that
criminal history is not mandatory and
sections of the Gangster Act can be
imposed in the course of investigation of
any base case, falls under category of
certain offence mentioned in Rule 22 (2) of
the Rules, 2021.

16. The controversy has already
been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Shraddha Gupta vs The State Of
Uttar Pradesh decided on 26 April, 2022 in
Criminal Appeal No. 569-570 of 2022 that
the provisions of Gangster Act can be
imposed on the basis of a solitary case.

17. In addition, the object of
enacting the Gangster Act and the Rules
framed thereunder may also be taken note
of, which are noted as under:

Of the Act:

"An act to make special provision
for the prevention of, and for coping with,
gangsters and anti-social activities and for
matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto."

Of the Rules:

In
exercise
of
the
powers
conferred by Section 23 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Gangster
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (U.P. Act
No. 7 of 1986) read with Section 21 of the
Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904
(U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904) and in suppression
of all Government Orders and Notifications
made under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 (U.P. Act No. 7 of 1986), except as
respect things done or omitted to be done
before such suppression, the Governor is
pleased to make the following rules with a
view to provide for a speedy and
transparent procedure to punish gangsters,
to establish an efficient recovery system in
respect of property of gangsters and
incidental benefits acquired by them
through crimes and acts related therewith."

(Emphasis Supplied)

18. Clearly, object of framing
Rules, 2021 is to provide for a speedy
procedure as well. It is needless to point
out that in the Criminal Procedure Code,
there is no specific time frame provided for
conducting
the
investigation
and
submission of charge-sheet in the Court.
The only provision seems to be that under
Section 167 CrPC, which provides that in
certain cases, the charge-sheet is not filed
within 60 days and in other cases the
charge-sheet is not filed within 90 days, the
12 All. Anil Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
559
arrested accused person shall be entitled
for default bail.

19. Sub-section (ii) of Section 167
Cr.P.C. proviso (a) provides as under:

"167.
Procedure
when
investigation cannot be completed in
twenty-four hours.- (1) ?

(2)?..

Provided that

(a) the Magistrate may authorise
the detention of the accused person,
otherwise than in the custody of the police,
beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is
satisfied that adequate grounds exist for
doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise
the detention of the accused person in
custody under this paragraph for a total
period exceeding,-

(i)
ninety
days,
where
the
investigation
relates
to
an
offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for
life or imprisonment for a term of not less
than ten years;

(ii)
sixty
days,
where
the
investigation relates to any other offence,
and, on the expiry of the said period of
ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may
be, the accused person shall be released on
bail if he is prepared to and does furnish
bail, and every person released on bail
under this sub-section shall be deemed to
be so released under the provisions of
Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that
Chapter;]

20.
The
aforesaid
provision
clearly reflects that only a guiding factor
regarding
completion
of
investigation
within a time bound period has been
provided in Cr.P.C., however, there is no
mandatory provision in this regard in the
Code.

21. That apart, it is the settled
law that further investigation can be
directed under Section 173(8) CrPC by the
higher police authorise after receipt of the
police
report
forwarded
by
the
Investigating Officer.

22. The purpose of enacting the
aforesaid Act is control special provision
for the prevention of, and for coping with
gangsters and anti-social activities in the
State and speedy provision under the Rules,
so that speedy investigation and trial can
be conducted in the criminal prosecution
lodged under the provisions of the Act.

23. Chapter 4 of the Rules, 2021
is dedicated to the sanction of the
investigation and prosecution sanction.
Rules 22 and 24 fall within this Chapter.
Rule 24 of the Rules provides for
expeditious investigation, which is quoted
as under:

"24. Expeditious Investigation-
(1) The investigation of any offence under
the Act shall, as far as possible, be
completed within six months.

(2) In unavoidable circumstances,
after the approval of the district police incharge, a maximum extension of three
months can be provided.

(3)
In
no
case,
can
the
investigation be extended for more than
one year."

24. By the aforesaid provision,
specific time frame for completion of the
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
investigation has been provided. Thus, the
object of enacting the Gangster Act, 1986
and the Rules, 2021 framed thereunder is
clearly to provide speedy procedure for
conducting the investigation for effective
speedy punishment under the provisions of
the Act.

25. Under these circumstances, in
case it is accepted that a certified copy
issued by the competent Court of law only
would be required before preparation of
the gang chart, it would frustrate the very
purpose of the Act and the Rules as this has
already been noted above that no specific
time frame has been fixed to complete
investigation under the provisions of the
CrPC and even further investigation can be
directed by the police authority under the
provisions of Section 173 (8) CrPC after
receipt of police report forwarded by the
Investigating Officer.

26. At the cost of repetition, it
may again be highlighted that Rule 5 (3)
(c) of the Rules, 2021 clearly provides that
"However, the gang-chart shall not be
approved
without
the
completion
of
investigation of the base case." Therefore,
interpreting Rule 10 of the Rules, 2021 in
any manner would clearly frustrate the
aims and object of the Gangster Act and
the Rules framed thereunder.

27. In such view of the matter, we
find that the arguments as raised by
learned counsel for the petitioner are not
sustainable in the eye of law. We further
note that all such rules violation whereof is
being claimed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner have also been considered by
this Court extensively in the case of Ambuj
Parag Dubey and two others v. State of
U.P.
and
two others,
delivered
on
6.12.2022. Para 13, 14, 15, 17, 26, 27, 28,
29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 are quoted as
under:

"13. Gangster Act was enacted to
make special provision for the prevention
of, and for coping with gangsters and antisocial activities and for matters connected
therewith and incidental thereto. The
Gangster Act is a special statute, as well
as, a penal statute.

14. The Gangster Act seeks to
punish declared criminals who have
deliberately chosen the life of crime. The
activities of these professional perpetrators
of organized crimes, violence and orgy has
a far more baneful effect on the health and
morals of the society and its people. If the
activities of such recidivists are subjected
to same punishment as that other ordinary
criminals, the confidence of public in the
efficacy
and
efficiency
of
State
Administration is bound to shake (vide;
Ashok Kumar Dixit vs. State of U.P., AIR
1987 (All) 235 (All HC,FB).

15. As per Section 20 of Gangster
Act, provisions of the Act or any Rule made
thereunder shall have overriding effect
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent
therewith
contained
in
any
other
enactment. The State Government in
exercise of powers under Section 23 of the
Gangster Act and in supersession of all
Government Orders and notifications, duly
notified on 27 December 2021, the
Gangster Rules to provide for speedy and
transparent procedure to punish gangster
and to establish efficient recovery system in
respect of property of gangsters and
incidental benefits acquired by them
through crimes and acts related therewith.

17. Chapter-II of Gangster Rules
lays
down
''Conditions
of
Criminal
12 All. Anil Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
561
Liability of Gangs'. Rule 3(1) provides that
the offences mentioned in Sub-sections (i)
to (xxv) of clause (b) of section 2 of the
Gangster Act shall be punishable under the
Gangster Act only if they are: (a)
committed for disturbing public order; or
(b) committed by causing violence or threat
or display of violence, or by intimidation,
or coercion or otherwise, either singly or
collectively, for the purposes of obtaining
any unfair worldly, economic, material,
pecuniary or other advantage to himself or
to any other person.

26. All the anti-social activities
mentioned in the definition of gang are not
covered as offences but are certainly
unlawful activities having serious reflection
on the society, though not termed as
offences. Thus, the law never required that
offences must have been committed in past
or involve use of violence for prosecution
under the Gangster Act. Further, as per
definition of gang, the Gangster Act seeks
to prevent and punish activities which may
result in undue temporal, pecuniary,
material or other advantage to the
gangsters or any other person and which
may or may not necessarily, involve the use
of violence. (Verneet Kumar vs. State of
U.P. 2009 (1) ALL CrJ 377).

27. Chapter-III of Gangster Rules
lays down the principles related to Gang
Chart. Rule-5 mandates that Incharge of a
Police
Station/Station
House
Officer/
Inspector shall prepare a Gang Chart
(Form No. 1) mentioning the details of
criminal activities of the gang. The Gang
Chart will be presented to the district head
of the Police after clear recommendation of
the Additional Superintendent of Police
mentioning
the
detailed
activities
in
relation of all the persons of the said gang.
Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that the
provisions contained therein shall be
complied in respect of gang charts. The
provision reads thus:

5. (1) To initiate proceedings
under this Act, the concerned Incharge of
Police General Rules Station/Station House
Officer/Inspector shall prepare a gangchart mentioning the details of criminal
activities of the gang.

(2) The gang-chart will be
presented to the district head of police after
clear recommendation of the Additional
Superintendent of Police mentioning the
detailed activities in relation to all the
persons of the said gang.

(2) The following provisions
shall be complied with in respect of gangcharts:-

a. The gang-chart will not be
approved
summarily
but
after
due
discussion in a joint meeting of the
Commissioner
of
Police/District
Magistrate/Senior
Superintendent
of
Police/ Superintendent of Police.

b. There may be no gang of one
person but there may be a gang of known
and other unknown persons and in that
form the gang-chart may be approved as
per these rules.

c.
The
gang-chart
shall
not
mention those cases in which acquittal has
been granted by the Special Court or in
which the final report has been filed after the
investigation. However, the gang-chart shall
not be approved without the completion of
investigation of the base case.

d. Those cases shall not be
mentioned in the gang-chart, on the basis
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of which action has already been taken
once under this Act.

e. A separate list of criminal
history, as given in Form No. 4, shall be
attached with the gang-chart detailing all
the criminal activities of that gang and
mentioning all the criminal cases, even if
acquittal has been granted in those case or
even where final report has been submitted
in the absence of evidence.

Along with the above, a certified
copy of the gang register kept at the police
station shall also be attached with the
gang-chart. In addition to the above, the
information of crime and gang members
mentioned in the gang-chart will also be
updated on Interoperable Criminal Justice
(ICJS) portal and Crime and Criminal
Tracking Network System (CCTNS).

28. Rule 6 provides that while
preparing the Gang Chart it shall be
clearly mentioned, if the alleged act of the
gang falls within the purview of clause (b)
of Section 2 of the Act along with relevant
provisions, further, sub-rule (2) mandates
that the Investigating Officer makes an
endorsement to the effect that the accused
is causing panic, alarm or terror in public,
then evidence shall be collected in this
regard. In addition to the above, a list of
criminal
history
may
be
attached
separately in the prescribed format. (Form
No. 4)

29. Rule
10
mandates
that
records of base cases, would accompany
the gang chart and Rule 11 mandates that
the present status of all the accused,
whether they are in jail or on bail or
absconding, shall be clearly mentioned.
Rule 13 mandates that while writing
abstract below the gang chart and
particulars of those officials shall be
specifically
mentioned.
Rule
13
is
extracted:

13. While writing the abstract
below the gang-chart and particulars
separately
with
the
gang-chart,
the
particulars of those offences shall be
specifically mentioned:-

i. which have been committed for
pecuniary, materialistic and temporal or
similar benefits; or

ii. which disturb the public order;
or

iii. Which are a ground for
detention under the National Security Act,
1980 (Act no. 65 of 1980)

31. Rule 16 provides the manner
and the recommendations to be made while
forwarding the gang chart Rule 16 reads
thus:

16. The following manner shall
be followed in the forwarding of GangChart:

(1) Forwarding of the gang-chart
by the Additional Superintendent of Police:
The Additional Superintendent of Police
will not only take a quick forwarding action
in the case but he will duly peruse the
gang-chart and all the attached forms; and
when it is satisfied that there is a just and
satisfactory basis to pursue the case, only
then will he forward the letter along with
the recommendation given below on the
gang-chart
to
the
Superintendent
of
Police/Senior Superintendent of Police.

"Throughly studies the gangchart and attached evidence. The basis of
12 All. Anil Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
563
action under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 exists. Accordingly, forwarded with
recommendation."

(2) Forwarding of the gang-chart
by the district police in-charge: When the
gang-chart along with all the Forms is
received by the Senior Superintendent of
Police/Superintendent of Police with the
clear recommendation of the Additional
Superintendent of Police, he will also
thoroughly analyze all the facts and when it
is confirmed that all the formalities of the
Act have been fulfilled and there is a legal
basis for taking action in the case, then he
should forward the gang-chart to the
Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate
stating that: "I have duly perused the gangchart and attached forms and I am fully
satisfied that all the particulars mentioned
in the case are correct and there is a
satisfactory basis for taking action under
the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act 1986.
Accordingly, approved"

(3)
Resolution
of
the
Commissioner
of
Police/District
Magistrate: When the gang-chart is sent to
be the Commissioner of Police/District
Magistrate along with all the Forms, all the
facts will also be thoroughly perused by the
Commissioner
of
Police/Districts
Magistrate and when he is satisfied that
the basis of action exists in the case, then
he will approve the gang-chart stating
therein that: "I duly perused the gangchart and attached Forms in the light of
the evidence attached with the gangchart, satisfactory grounds exist for
taking action under the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986. The gang-chart is
approved accordingly."

It is noteworthy that the words
written above are only illustrative. There is
no compulsion to write the same verbatim
but it is necessary that the meaning of
approval should be the same as the
recommendations written above, and it
should also be clear from the note of
approval marked.

32. Satisfaction of the competent
authority only means that the competent
authority must be in fact satisfy and not a
dishonest satisfaction, which will be no
satisfaction
at
all.
The
satisfaction
contemplated by the Gangster Rule is
satisfaction in point of fact on the materials
placed before the competent authority. The
satisfaction of the competent authority
referred to under the Rule is not with
respect to the allegations levelled against
the gangster but the satisfaction is confined
to those allegations that the accused can be
prosecuted
under
the
Gangster
Act.
Whatever may be the nature of charge
against the accused, the satisfaction of the
competent authority should be with regard
to that the materials placed before him and
the nature of the accused indulging in
community antisocial activities. It is
expedient to sanction prosecution under the
Gangster Act.

33. The expression satisfied is
much narrower than ''application of mind'.
The competent authority is not to apply his
mind and satisfy himself as to whether the
material placed before him would be
sufficient for convicting the accused under
the Gangster Act. The satisfaction is
confined within a narrow domain based on
the materials placed before the competent
authority, the authorities forwarding the
gang chart is satisfied that the accused
should be prosecuted under the Gangster
Act. The expression satisfaction is not
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
satisfaction on evidence but a prima facie
satisfaction based on the representations of
the nodal authority and the district police
that the accused should be prosecuted
under the Gangster Act.

34. Rule 17 mandates that the
competent authority is bound to exercise its
own independent mind while forwarding
the gang chart and should not be on a preprinted rubber seal gang chart. Rule 17
reads thus:

17 (1) the Competent Authority
shall be bound to exercise its own
independent mind while forwarding the
gang-chart.

(2) A pre-printed rubber seal
gang-chart should not be signed by the
Competent Authority; otherwise the same
shall tantamount to the fact that the
Competent Authority has not exercised its
free mind.

35. Rule 18 provides that gang
chart shall be sent only in the manner as
given in Form No.1 of these rules.

36. Rule 17 and 18 would have to
be read together. Gang chart has to be sent
in the prescribed Form No. 1. The
endorsement to be made by each of the
authorities have also been specified in Rule
16. The rule itself prescribes and mandates
a printed Form. Rule 17 merely mandates
that
the
competent
authority
while
approving the gang chart should not be
swayed by the recommendation of the
police authorities mechanically but should
satisfy himself independently that the
grounds for prosecution is made out. The
satisfaction at that stage is subjective and
does not rest upon any evidence. The
competent authority has to satisfy that the
materials placed with the gang chart calls
for prosecution. The stage of collecting
evidence follows thereafter. The scope of
judicial review is miniscule, the accused
cannot
challenge
the
FIR
without
challenging the gang chart. The question as
to whether the antisocial activities of the
proposed accused is that of a gang or
gangster is a matter of investigation."

(Emphasis supplied)

28. In the said judgment, the
entire scheme of the Act was discussed and
approved.

30. The provisions were again
considered by this Court in the case of
Virendra Kasaudhan vs. State of U.P.,
(2023) SCC OnLine All 1431."

10.