# Narendra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 365
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-04
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ No. 15487 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49467
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226 - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986- Sections 2 &
3(1)- One of the main basic principles of
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interpretation is that if meaning of words of
statute are plain, effect must be given to it
irrespective of consequences, Applying this
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-Therefore,
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 gang-chart, and the
same had clearly been done in the present case-
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- In the present case
of the petitioner 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 on 20.3.2023, hence
there is no violation of Rule 5(3)(c) of the Rules-
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- the
charge-sheet
has
been
prepared
by
the
Investigating Officer under his signatures and
the investigation had already been concluded
before preparation 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- 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- 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 p

## Text

_Characters 0–39,714 of 44,933. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39714 for what follows._

11 All. Narendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
365
Section 438, CrPC should not have been
entertained, as he was a proclaimed
offender. We may note that in Lavesh v.
State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730,
this Court was categoric against grant of
anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender.
In the same vein, following Lavesh (supra)
is the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171,
where this Court emphasised that a
proclaimed offender would not be entitled
to anticipatory bail. Of course, in an
exceptional and rare case, this Court or the
High Courts can consider a plea seeking
anticipatory bail, despite the applicant
being a proclaimed offender, given that the
Supreme Court and High Courts are
Constitutional
Courts.
However,
no
exceptional situation arises in the case at
hand. Following Pradeep Sharma (supra),
in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar,
2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, this Court was
unequivocal that the High Court therein
erred in granting anticipatory bail ignoring
proceedings under Sections 82 and 83,
CrPC. In Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra,
(2022) 8 SCC 282, this Court concluded:

'68. As regards the implication of
proclamation having been issued against
the appellant, we have no hesitation in
making it clear that any person, who is
declared as an "absconder" and remains
out of reach of the investigating agency and
thereby stands directly at conflict with law,
ordinarily, deserves no concession or
indulgence. By way of reference, we may
observe that in relation to the indulgence of
pre-arrest bail in terms of Section 438
CrPC, this Court has repeatedly said that
when an accused is absconding and is
declared as proclaimed offender, there is no
question of giving him the benefit of Section
438 CrPC. [For example, Prem Shankar
Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 14 SCC
529, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955] ?'"

20. The deliberate oblivion to the
process issued by the Court on the part of
the applicants denudes their claim to treat
their application for grant of anticipatory
bail as maintainable under the roof of a
'rare and exceptional case' and thereby to
grant anticipatory bail to them.

21. In view of the above, declaring
the present application for grant of
anticipatory bail as not maintainable, I
deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory
bail to the present applicants. The wilful
defaulters, who do not cooperate with the
trial court at all, are not entitled to get any
relief
from this
Court
by
way
of
anticipatory bail.

22. The anticipatory bail application
is, accordingly, rejected.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 365
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.10.2023

BEFORE

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

Crl. Misc. Writ No. 15487 of 2023

Narendra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohammad Khalid, Sri Satish Tamta (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226 - U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986- Sections 2 &
3(1)- One of the main basic principles of
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interpretation is that if meaning of words of
statute are plain, effect must be given to it
irrespective of consequences, Applying this
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-Therefore,
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 gang-chart, and the
same had clearly been done in the present case-
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- In the present case
of the petitioner 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 on 20.3.2023, hence
there is no violation of Rule 5(3)(c) of the Rules-
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- the
charge-sheet
has
been
prepared
by
the
Investigating Officer under his signatures and
the investigation had already been concluded
before preparation 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- 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- 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 OfficerRule 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.(Para 1 to 31)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ankit Sharma @ Ankit Kumar Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. CMWP No. 8164 of 2022

2. Prithvi Singh Vs St. of U.P. Crl. Misc. Appl.
U/S 372 Cr.P.C. (Leave to Appeal) No.329 of
2012

3. Nelson Motis Vs U.O.I . (1992) SC 1981
11 All. Narendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
367
4. Kanailal Sur Vs Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan
(1957) AIR SC 907

5. St. of U.P. Vs Vijay Anand Maharaj (1963)
AIR SC 946

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

7. Raghunath Rai Bareja Vs PNB (2007) 2 SCC
230

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

9. Motiram Ghelabhai (deceased L.R.) Vs Jagan
Nagar (deceased L.Rs.) & ors. (198) AIR5 SC
709

10. Sundaram Pillai Vs Pattabiraman (1985) 1
SCC 591

11. Shraddha Gupta Vs St. Of U.P. CRLA No.
569-570 of 2022

12. Ambuj Parag Dubey & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
two Ors

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

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

15. 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 Satish Tamta, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mohd.
Khalid, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondents, and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred with the prayer to quash the
impugned First Information Report dated
20.03.2023 registered as Case Crime
No.136 of 2023, under Sections 2, 3(1) of
the
U.P.
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police
Station- Dadri, District- Gautam Budh
Nagar, and for a direction to the police not
to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the
impugned FIR.

3. The prosecution's case posits that
the petitioner, in collaboration with other
gang members, usurped the Patta land
allotted
to
landless
individuals from
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in
accordance with government land allotment
policies. This acquisition was allegedly
executed through the use of coercion and
intimidation, allowing the petitioner and
their associates to purchase the land at
reduced rates and subsequently vend the
same at elevated prices in an orchestrated
manner. These gang members, acting both
collectively and individually engaged in
activities aimed at unjust economic and
financial gain while inflicting illegal
financial loss upon landless individuals
from the scheduled castes and scheduled
tribes. It is claimed that they are operating
in association with other criminal gang
members, perpetrating acts of terror on
impoverished villagers. The actions of
these professional criminals involved in
organized criminal activities purportedly
have adverse effects on societal health and
morals.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner has not done
anything contrary to the provisions of
sections 2, 3(1) of the Act and that there is
a violation of Rules 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17,
18 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021,
framed under the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh
Gangsters
and
Anti
Social
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Activities
(Prevention)
Act,
1986
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules & Act)
in the present case. It is submitted that the
gang-chart has been prepared without there
being
joint
meeting
discussion
as
contemplated under Rule 5(3)(a) of the
Rules. There is a violation of Rule 5(3)(c)
of the Rules, which says that the gang-chart
shall not be prepared without completion of
investigation of the base case. It is next
submitted that in this case it is mentioned
in the gang chart that the charge-sheet was
submitted on 6.2.2023, however, insofar as
the accused-petitioner herein Narendra
Kumar is concerned, whose name is
mentioned at Serial No.6 of the gang-chart,
it is revealed through e-court service
information that the charge-sheet was filed
in the court on 21.3.2023 and as such no
charge-sheet was available on the day/date
the gang-chart was prepared, and therefore,
there is violation of Rule 5(3)(c) and Rule
10 of the Rules. It is also submitted that the
gang-chart has not been forwarded in the
manner as prescribed in Rule 16 of the
Rules. In para-1 of the petition it has been
stated that petitioner is an Advocate in
Delhi. Submission, therefore, is that the
impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. No other ground is taken by learned
counsel for the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
opposing the prayer has pointed out that
against the main accused gang leader
Yashpal Tomar, the charge-sheet was
forwarded by the Investigating Officer on
13.11.2023 cognizance whereof was also
taken on 25.11.2022. In the case of the
petitioner, the process of approval of the
gang-chart has started on 17.3.2023 and
was ultimately approved by the final
authority- Police Commissioner, Gautam
Budh Nagar on 20.3.2023, which is much
after the date of completion of the
investigation against the petitioner and
forwarding of the charge-sheet on 6.2.2023,
cognizance whereof was taken by the court
on 20.3.2023. A photocopy of the charge
sheet as received and supplied by learned
A.G.A. is taken on record.

7. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties at length and have also gone
through the grounds taken in the petition.
However, much emphasis was given by
learned counsel for the petitioner on
violation of Rule 5(3)(c) of the Rules,
which is quoted as under:

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

(2).........

(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)

8. In the case of petitioner Narendra
Kumar, gang-chart clearly mentions that
the charge-sheet was prepared on 6.2.2023
and had already been forwarded by the
Investigating Officer. On instructions, it
was pointed out that initially charge-sheet
was forwarded on 25.11.2022 by the
Investigating Officer against other coaccused persons, however, subsequently,
higher
authority
directed
further
investigation and it is only thereafter the
charge-sheet dated 6.2.2023 was forwarded
against the petitioner along with several
other accused in the base FIR, cognizance
whereof was taken by the court on
20.3.2023. Clearly, the investigation against
11 All. Narendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
369
the
petitioner
had,
therefore,
been
concluded on 6.2.2023, much before
preparation
of
the
gang-chart,
and
therefore, there is no illegality, infirmity in
preparation of the gang-chart. It may be
noted that the fact remains that cognizance
of the charge-sheet filed against the
petitioner on 6.2.2023 had also been taken
by the court itself.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on the judgment of this
Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.8164 of 2022 (Ankit Sharma @ Ankit
Kumar v. State of U.P. and others),
decided on 9.11.2022, wherein learned
Division Bench in the facts-circumstances
has held that before making compliance of
Rule 10 of the Rules, the gang-chart has
been filed and a wrong impression was
given to the court that the charge-sheet has
already been filed in the related case crime
number. A bare glance over the Rule
5(3)(c) of the Rules, 2021 clearly provides
that only requirement is that the gang-chart
shall not be approved without completion
of the investigation of the base case. In the
present
case,
therefore,
under
no
circumstances,
it
can held that
the
investigation has not been completed. As
per learned A.G.A., initially investigation
had been completed and charge-sheet was
forwarded on 13.11.2022 against the gang
leader Yashpal Tomar along with coaccused persons, however, on further
investigation, names of certain accused
persons were deleted, and names of certain
other accused including the petitioner,
herein were added and ultimately the
charge-sheet dated 6.2.2023 was prepared
and forwarded by the Investigating Officer
cognizance whereof was taken by the court
on 20.3.2023. Therefore, Ankit Sharma
(Supra) is clearly of no help to the
petitioner.

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, 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.

13. In Kanailal Sur vs. Paramnidhi
Sadhu Khan, AIR 1957 SC 907 it was
observed that if the words used are capable
of one construction only then it would not
be open to the courts to adopt any other
hypothetical construction on the ground
that such construction is more consistent
with the alleged object and policy of the
Act.

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
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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
11 All. Narendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
371
(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 gang-chart, 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 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 chargesheet 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.
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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
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
11 All. Narendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
373
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 in-charge,
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
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
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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:
11 All. Narendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
375

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 gang-charts:-

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 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)
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 Gang-Chart:

(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 gang-chart
and attached evidence. The basis of
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 gang-chart 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
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act
1986.
Accordingly,
approved"