# Ballia & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** Application U/S 482 No. 40911 of 2019
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-26
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 40911 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ballia-anr-v-state-of-u-p-45186
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal law-U.P. Gangster and Anti Social
Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1986-section
12-Trial u/s 302 IPC pending and about to
conclude-Applicant submit that trial under
Gangster Act may first be concluded
thereafter trial u/s302IPC-section 12 of
the Act-case under Gangster Act should
not be delayed-clash of dates with other
case to be avoided- if dates are common
then case under the Gangster Act will get
precedence-other case cannot be placed in
abeyance-Application dismissed.

Held, If the interpretation is given that till the
conclusion of trial under the Gangsters Act all other
cases have to be placed in abeyance, then a chaotic
situation would arise and accused would manage a
case pending under various other acts merely on the
ground of pendency of case under Gangster
Act.(Para 18) (E-9)

In the present case Session Trial against the accused
persons is pending since 2005 and they are just
trying to get delayed the trial with the help of Section
12 of the Gangsters Act.
(Para 19)
After considering all the submissions and the law laid
down by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that
the trial against the accused persons cannot be kept
in abeyance till conclusion of the trial under the
Gangsters Act. The only consideration for this Court is
that there should not be any collusion of date so that
cases under the Gangsters Act are not delayed. (Para
20)

Cases cited:

## Text

1736 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 3(1)(X) of the Act is hereby
quashed. For rest of the offences, the
prayed relief is refused.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1736
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 40911 of 2019

Ballia & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Abhishek
Mayank.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Ronak Chaturvedi

Criminal law-U.P. Gangster and Anti Social
Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1986-section
12-Trial u/s 302 IPC pending and about to
conclude-Applicant submit that trial under
Gangster Act may first be concluded
thereafter trial u/s302IPC-section 12 of
the Act-case under Gangster Act should
not be delayed-clash of dates with other
case to be avoided- if dates are common
then case under the Gangster Act will get
precedence-other case cannot be placed in
abeyance-Application dismissed.

Held, If the interpretation is given that till the
conclusion of trial under the Gangsters Act all other
cases have to be placed in abeyance, then a chaotic
situation would arise and accused would manage a
case pending under various other acts merely on the
ground of pendency of case under Gangster
Act.(Para 18) (E-9)

In the present case Session Trial against the accused
persons is pending since 2005 and they are just
trying to get delayed the trial with the help of Section
12 of the Gangsters Act.
(Para 19)
After considering all the submissions and the law laid
down by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that
the trial against the accused persons cannot be kept
in abeyance till conclusion of the trial under the
Gangsters Act. The only consideration for this Court is
that there should not be any collusion of date so that
cases under the Gangsters Act are not delayed. (Para
20)

Cases cited:

1. Mohd. Tariq & anr. Vs St. of U.P. Application
U/s 482 No. 18978 of 2019

2. Rohit Singh Vs. St. of U.P. (2016) 95 ACC 350

3. Dharmendra Kirthal Vs St. of U.P. [(2013) 8
SCC 368

4. Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi Vs. St. of U.P.
(Application U/s 482 No. 27361 of 2011)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

1. Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned
counsel has filed counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the informant, which is taken on
record.

2. Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava,
learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for
the informant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.

3. The applicants, through the
present application under Section 482
Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer
to quash the proceedings of S.T. No.
661 of 2005 (State vs. Balliya, under
Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Khair, districtAligarh, pending in the Court of Addl.
District Judge-IV, Aligarh till the
disposal of G.S.T. No. 630 of 2010,
under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986,
3-5 All. Ballia & Anr.Vs. State of U.P.
1737
pending in the Court of Addl. District
Judge, court no. 6, Aligarh in view of the
Section 12 of U.P. Gangster and Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that the applicants are facing trial
in Sessions Trial no. is 661 of 2005, under
Section 302 I.P.C. and in view of the
aforesaid Sessions Trial, the applicants
were also arrayed as accused in S.S.T. No.
630 of 2010, under Section 2/3 U.P.
Gangster
and
Anti
Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, which is pending in
the Court of IV Addl. District Judge,
Aligarh and the proceedings of Gangsters
Act are still continuing and proceedings in
the Session Trial no. 661 of 2005, under
Section 302 I.P.C. are about to conclude.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants
has relied on Section 12 U.P Gangster and
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 and submitted that trial under the
Gangster act may first be concluded and
thereafter trial under Section 302 I.P.C.
should proceed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants
while advancing his argument has placed
reliance on the order of this Court in Mohd.
Tariq and another vs. State of U.P. passed in
application U/s 482 No. 18978 of 2019 and has
submitted that in view of the decision in the
above mentioned case the trial of the Gangster
Act pending in the court of IVth Addl. District
Judge, Aligarh be given precedence and
proceedings of S.T. No. 661 of 2005, pending
in the Court of VIth Addl. District Judge be
kept in abeyance till the decision of S.T. No.
630 of 2010 under Gangster Act.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as
well as learned counsel for the informant have
submitted that matter has been very well dealt
with by another Bench of this Court in Rohit
Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 95 ACC 350
and has submitted that validity of this section
has been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P.
[(2013) 8 SCC 368. Hon'ble Apex Court
observed as follows :

"32. The present provision is to
be tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid
constitutional principle. The provision
clearly mandates that the trial under this
Act of any offence by the Special Court
shall have precedence and shall be
concluded in preference to the trial in such
other courts to achieve the said purpose.
The legislature thought it appropriate to
provide that the trial of such other case
shall remain in abeyance. It is apt to note
here that "any other case" against the
accused in "any other court" does not
include the Special Court. The emphasis is
on speedy trial and not denial of it. The
legislature
has
incorporated
such
a
provision so that an accused does not face
trial in two cases simultaneously and a
case before the Special Court does not
linger owing to clash of dates in trial. It is
also worthy to note that the Special Court
has been conferred jurisdiction under subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Act to try any
other offences with which the accused may,
under any other law for the time being in
force, have been charged and proceeded at
the same trial."

8. Hon'ble Apex Court has also held
in Shashi Gupta vs. State of U.P., in that
case, Hon'ble Apex Court has stated as
under :-

"We have seen the provisions of
Sections 7 & 8 of the Gangsters Act. In our
opinion, these provisions do not mean that
if a case is already started under the
1738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provisions of the Indian Penal Code and
has proceeded to some extent, then if a case
under the Gangsters Act has been initiated
on the same facts, then it must be
transferred to the Special Court under the
Gangsters Act. If this submissions is
accepted then a large number of cases will
be thus delayed and frustrated".

9. This issue was also dealt with by
this Court in Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi v.
State of U.P. (Application U/s 482 No.
27361 of 2011), in which it has been
observed that, "The legislative intention
was not that the proceedings of other
offences must be kept in abeyance till
conclusion of trial under the Gangsters
Act."

10. Relevant part of the judgment is
being reproduced below :-

"A perusal of the aforesaid
provision reveals the legislative intent
behind the said provision and its object
was that the trial under the Gangsters Act
should be given preference and the same
should not get unduly delayed because of
pendency of other cases in other courts.
The legislative intention was not that the
proceedings of other offences must be kept
in abeyance till conclusion of trial under
the Gangsters Act. Its intent was that the
dates fixed in the other trials and in the
case under the Gangsters Act should not
clash together, in order to ensure that the
trial under the Gangsters Act does not get
unduly delayed or hampered with and
reaches to its logical conclusion at the
earliest. It can not be the intention of the
legislature that if a person is required in
other cases in crimes of such henious
nature such as murder, dacoity, loot and
rape etc, the trial of those offences should
not proceed further till conclusion of trial
under Gangsters Act. In view of the above,
it is clear that the legislative intent is that
the trial under the Gangsters Act need be
given preference to other trial."

11. Learned counsel for the applicants
contended that all the provision of Sections
7, 8 and 12 of the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act have to
be read together then Court should form an
opinion.

12. Sections 7, 8 and 12 of U.P.
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act is being reproduced
below:-

"7. Jurisdiction of Special Courts-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code, were a Special Court has been
constituted for any local area, every offence
punishable under any provision of this Act
or any rule made thereunder shall be triable
only by the Special Court within whose
local jurisdiction it was committed whether
before or after the constitution of such
special Court.

(2) All cases triable by a Special
Court, which immediately before the
constitution of such Special Court were
pending before any Court, shall on creation
of such Special Court having jurisdiction
over such cases, stand transferred to it.

(3) Where it appears to any court
in the course of any inquiry or trial in
respect of any offence that the case is one
which should be 'red by a Special Court
constituted under this Act for the area in
which such case has arisen, it shall transfer
such case to such Special Court and
thereupon such case shall be tried and
disposed of by the Special Court in
accordance with the provisions of this Act:
3-5 All. Ballia & Anr.Vs. State of U.P.
1739

Provided that it shall be lawful
for the Special Court to act on the evidence,
if any, recorded by the Court in the case in
the presence of the accused before the
transfer of the case under this section:

Provided further that if the
Special Court is of opinion that further
examination of any of the witnesses whose
evidence is already recorded in the case is
necessary in the interest of justice, it may
re-summon any such witness and after such
further examination, cross-examination and
re-examination, it any, as it may permit, the
witness shall be discharged.

(4) The State Government may, if
satisfied that it is necessary or expedient in
the public interest so to do, transfer any
case pending before a Special Court to
another Special Court.

8. Power of Special courts with
respect to other offences.- (1) When trying
any offence punishable under this Act a
Special Court may also try any other
offence with which the accused may, under
any other law for the time being in force,
be charged at the same trial.

(2) If in the course of any trial
under this Act of any offence, it is found
that the accused has committed any other
offence under this Act or any rule
thereunder or under any other law, the
Special Court may convict such person of
such other offence and pass any sentence
authorized by this Act or such rule or, as
the case may be, such other law, for the
punishment thereof."

12. From the above discussion, it
emerges that intention of legislature behind
enacting Section 12 is that case under the
Gangsters Act should not be delayed. Other
cases can go on but clash of dates has to be
avoided and for this purpose 'kept in
abeyance' would mean that if dates are
common then case under the Gangsters Act
will get precedence.

13. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned
counsel for the informant have also
submitted that Session Trial under Section
302 I.P.C. is pending since 2005 and sole
purpose of the applicants is to get delayed
the judgement of the Session Trial and this
application has been filed only to get
delayed the trial.

14. After perusal of the provisions of
Gangsters Act, it emerges that the intention
of the legislative behind enacting Section
12 is that case under the Gangsters Act
should not be delayed. Other cases can go
on but clash of dates has to be avoided and
for this purpose 'kept in abeyance' would
mean that if dates are common then case
under
the
Gangsters
Act
will
get
precedence.

15. If cases under the IPC or other Acts
have been the basis for slapping Gangsters Act,
then all the cases can be tried by Special court.
It will save valuable time of court apart from
ridding prosecution of its burden of producing
same evidence repeatedly in different courts.

16. Moreover, Section 7 enables
Special court to utilize the evidence
recorded during trial.

17. This Court is in respectful
agreement with the view taken by Hon.
Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. and with the view
of Hon. Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.

18. If the interpretation is given that
till the conclusion of trial under the
Gangsters Act all other cases have to be
1740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
placed in abeyance, then a chaotic situation
would arise and accused would manage a
case pending under various other acts
merely on the ground of pendency of case
under Gangster Act.

19. In the present case Session Trial
against the accused persons is pending
since 2005 and they are just trying to get
delayed the trial with the help of Section 12
of the Gangsters Act.

20.

After
considering
all
the
submissions and the law laid down by this
Court, this Court is of the opinion that the
trial against the accused persons cannot be
kept in abeyance till conclusion of the trial
under the Gangsters Act. The only
consideration for this Court is that there
should not be any collusion of date so that
cases under the Gangsters Act are not
delayed.

21. In the case on hand, the report was
lodged in the year 2005. The trial is
pending since 2005 and the trial is about to
conclude. The sole purpose of filing of this
application is to get the trial delayed, which
this Court will not permit.

22. The prayer claimed by the
applicants is devoid of merits and is liable
to be rejected and hence, it is accordingly
dismissed.
----------

(2020)03-05ILR A1740
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 42444 of 2019

Gulam Rabbani @ Sonu ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ronak Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal law-Cognizance order-Once the
Magistrate
takes
cognizance-either
without discussing reasons-it shall be
presumed-he is satisfied on the basis of
materialavailable
before
himdetail
discussion
not
required-
Application
disposed. (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. Shakuntala Devi Vs. St. of U.P. & ors.,
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.11232 of 2018
decided on 25.07.2018

2. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. C.B.I. reported in
(2015) 4 SCC 609

3. Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs. St. of Uttaranchal
reported in (2008) 17 SCC 157

4. Kanti Bhadra Shah & anr. Vs. St. of W.B.
(2000) 1 SCC 722

5. Bhushan Kumar & anr. Vs. St. (NCT of Delhi)
& anr., (2012) 5 SCC 424

6. U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Mohan
Meakins Ltd. & ors. (2000) 3 SCC 745

7. Amrawati & anr. Vs. St. of U.P. 2004 (57)
ALR 290

8. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. St. of U.P.
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs.Manju Rani
Chauhan , J.)

1. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
has been filed to quash the charge sheet