# Rahul Saxena @ Bhola/Bholu v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 152
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12808 of 2023
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahul-saxena-bhola-bholu-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50764
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.
1986 - Sections 2/3 - The U.P. Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 - Rule 5 & 10 , Public
Gambling Act, 1867 - Section 3/2 ,
Certified copy - not defined - definition of
phrase as per Law Lexicon & Black's Law
Dictionary - copy of a document signed
and certified as a true copy by the officer
to whose custody the original in entrusted
- copy, which is certified to be true in
terms of Section 76 of the Evidence Act is
also a certified copy - 'certified copy' as a
duplicate of an original, usually an official
document,
certified
as
an
exact
9 All. Rahul Saxena @ Bhola/Bholu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
153
reproduction,
usually
by
the
officer
responsible for issuing or keeping the
original.(Para - 9)

Quashing of FIR - contention - Gangsters Act
provisions invoked in two base cases -
investigation incomplete - Rule 5 and 10 of
U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Rules not complied with -
making FIR illegal - required papers for
approval - lack certified copy of base case
charge-sheets and recovery memos - not
sent along with documents - certified copy
means a copy issued from the Court -
preventing
gang
chart
from
being
approved.(Para - 3,4)

HELD:-Contention that a certified copy is a
court-issued copy is rejected in the judgment,
indicating that the first contention cannot be
accepted. No joint meeting held prior to
approval of gang chart by DM. No foundation
for such an assertion in the writ petition or the
supplementary affidavit.(Para - 10,13)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment apprising all the executive
authorities of the State of U.P. to strictly
adhere the ratio laid down mentioned
above. Hence forth it is expected from the
authorities that they would necessarily
spell out 'general nature of particular
allegations against the proposes Goonda',
his personal image among the masses his
social family background and then only
pass a well reasoned order not on a
prescribed proforma while issuing a show
cause notice and thereafter a pass a well
reasoned order of externment, (if at all
required and needed) by the said executive
authorities concerned. All the District
Magistrates and the executive authorities
working under him are directed to take
appropriate action hence forth and proceed
against the individual where they have got
a strong reason to believe that the
individual is rogue to the society and his
externment is a desirable.

20. As mentioned above, we are
witnessing
rampant
misuse
of
the
provisions of Uttar Pradesh Control of
Goondas Act, 1970. Ther is no uniformity
in the executive authorities of the districts
of UP regarding applicability of this
deterrent enactment causing unwarranted
piling up of the cases, challenging the
notices under this Act etc.

(A). Thus in this regard, it is
directed that the State Government too
would form a uniform guide lines regarding
the applicability of this Act in the light of
the above judgment.

(B). This guidelines must be
framed latest by 31st October 2023 and
shall be circulated among all the District
Magistrates of the Districts, so that they
may strictly adhere to those guidelines and
their shall be Uniformity in the application
of the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Control
of Goondas Act, 1970.

21. With this direction, the writ
petition stands allowed. The impugned
show cause notice dated 15.6.2023 issued
by the Additional District Magistrate
(Finance & Revenue), Aligarh is hereby
quashed. No order as to cost.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 152
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12808 of 2023

Rahul Saxena @ Bhola/Bholu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nagesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Ashwini
Kumar, Sri Sushil Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.
1986 - Sections 2/3 - The U.P. Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 - Rule 5 & 10 , Public
Gambling Act, 1867 - Section 3/2 ,
Certified copy - not defined - definition of
phrase as per Law Lexicon & Black's Law
Dictionary - copy of a document signed
and certified as a true copy by the officer
to whose custody the original in entrusted
- copy, which is certified to be true in
terms of Section 76 of the Evidence Act is
also a certified copy - 'certified copy' as a
duplicate of an original, usually an official
document,
certified
as
an
exact
9 All. Rahul Saxena @ Bhola/Bholu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
153
reproduction,
usually
by
the
officer
responsible for issuing or keeping the
original.(Para - 9)

Quashing of FIR - contention - Gangsters Act
provisions invoked in two base cases -
investigation incomplete - Rule 5 and 10 of
U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Rules not complied with -
making FIR illegal - required papers for
approval - lack certified copy of base case
charge-sheets and recovery memos - not
sent along with documents - certified copy
means a copy issued from the Court -
preventing
gang
chart
from
being
approved.(Para - 3,4)

HELD:-Contention that a certified copy is a
court-issued copy is rejected in the judgment,
indicating that the first contention cannot be
accepted. No joint meeting held prior to
approval of gang chart by DM. No foundation
for such an assertion in the writ petition or the
supplementary affidavit.(Para - 10,13)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Master @ Ramzan Vs St. of U.P. through
Principal Secy. Home & ors. 2020 0 Supreme
(All) 855

2. Ankit Sharma @ Ankit Kumar Vs St. of U.P.
2022 LawSuit(All) 1595

3. Binni Lala @ Vinod Kumar Jain Vs St. of U.P &
Ors., Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 19638 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh, J.)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has filed supplementary affidavit in the
Court today which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The instant writ petition seeks
quashing of the FIR dated 26.07.2023
giving rise to Case Crime No.0303 of 2023,
under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act., Police Station- Kila, District- Bareilly.

4. The contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the provisions of
the Gangsters Act have been invoked
against the petitioner on the basis of two
base cases. However, the investigation in
the base cases was not complete. He has
also vehemently argued that Rule 5 and 10
of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Rules have not been
complied with. The first information report
is, therefore, illegal and is liable to be set
aside.

5. He has also submitted that the
papers
which
were
required
to
be
forwarded to the approving authority lack
the certified copy of the charge-sheets of
base cases and the recovery memos. These
were not sent along with the documents, for
approval. He submits that a certified copy
means a copy issued from the Court. Since,
the charge-sheet had not been submitted in
court, no certified copy could have been
issued or annexed with the gang chart at the
point in time it was approved by the
approving authority.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also paced reliance on the judgments of this
being Master @ Ramzan Vs. State of U.P.
through Principal Secretary Home and
others 2020 0 Supreme (All) 855 and
Ankit Sharma @ Ankit Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. 2022 LawSuit(All) 1595 in support of
his submissions.

7. Learned AGA has opposed the writ
petition and has stated that the gang chart,
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
copy
whereof
is
annexed
with
the
supplementary
affidavit,
specifically
mentions two base cases against the
petitioners being Case Crime No. 88 of
2022 under Section 420 IPC, Police
Station-Kila, District-Bareilly wherein the
charge-sheet No. 151A/2022 is dated
12.06.2023 and the other base case is Case
Crime No. 89 of 2022 under Section 3/4 of
the Gambling Act, Police Station Kila,
District Bareilly wherein charge-sheet No.
152A of 2022 is also dated 12.06.2023.
Therefore, the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner lacks merit.

8.

We
have
considered
the
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.
Primarily, the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the words
"certified copy" used in Rule 10(1) means a
certified copy issued by the Court. It is,
therefore, the contention that till such time
the charge-sheet in the base cases has not
been filed before the Court, no action on its
basis can be taken under the provisions of
the Gangsters Act. This is the also import
of the two judgments that have been cited
by learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. The import of words certified copy
have been considered by this Court in the
judgment dated 02.05.2023 in Crl. Misc.
Writ Petition No. 19638 of 2022 Binni
Lala @ Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. State of
U.P and others. It has been held as
follows:

"The term certified copy has not
been defined either in the Indian Penal
Code, the Criminal Procedure Code or the
U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act or the Rules framed
thereunder.

"The definition of the phrase as
per the Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2012, as
follows:-

Certified copy: A copy of a
document signed and certified as a true
copy by the officer to whose custody the
original in entrusted. A certified copy of a
deed imports that it is an office copy taken
from the record of deeds and certified by
the proper officer."

The Law Lexicon also states that
a copy, which is certified to be true in terms
of Section 76 of the Evidence Act is also a
certified
copy.
It
also
means
an
authenticated copy and a certificate issued
by an officer is only a written declaration
of the fact that the copy is a true copy of the
original.

Black's Law Dictionary Eight
Edition (South Asian Edition), defines a
'certified copy' as a duplicate of an
original, usually an official document,
certified as an exact reproduction, usually
by the officer responsible for issuing or
keeping the original.

......................................

Under the circumstances, it is
difficult to accept the argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner that a certified
copy means a copy issued by the Court on
payment of charges, as is understood in
common parlance. It is not the case of the
petitioner that the charge-sheet appended
along with gang chart was not certified by
the SHO as being a true copy of the
original. The gang chart that has been
prepared on the basis of the charge-sheet
annexed along with it is therefore a valid
document and the submission that there
was non compliance of the Rule 10(1) of
the Rules cannot be accepted.

The second limb of the argument
of learned counsel for the petitioner that a
charge-sheet on the basis of which a gang
chart has been prepared must be one filed
9 All. Rahul Saxena @ Bhola/Bholu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
155
in Court and cognizance thereof must have
been taken before the same could be relied
upon to invoke the provisions of the
Gangsters Act is something which is not to
be found in the relevant rule namely Rule
10. This argument cannot be accepted also
because Rule 5(c) provides that the Gang
Chart shall not approved without the
investigation in the base case having been
completed. An investigation is treated as
complete after the investigation officer
prepares the charge-sheet and forwards it
to his superior for approval."

10. Therefore, the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner that a
certified copy means a certified copy issued
by the Court has not been accepted in the
judgment
aforesaid.
Accepting
the
reasoning, the first contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted.

11. The second submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
requisite documents specified in the Rule
10 of the Rules did not form part of the
dossier which were sent to the approving
authority for grant of approval. Averments
in this regard are to be found in paragraph
52 and 54 of the supplementary affidavit
which read as follows;-

"52. That in the present case the
Police did not annexed the certified copy of
charge-sheet and the recovery memo along
with the Gang Chart. The entire proceeding
for the approval of gang chart is absolutely
illegal and is arbitrary in manner.

54. That after going through the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case it is clear that no provisions of Rule-5,
8 and 10 of the Rules, 2021 complied. The
Investigating Officer giving a wrong
impression that the charge sheet has been
submitted, therefore, in such circumstances
required
under
Rule-8(5)
would
be
warranted, which clearly mentioned that on
discovering an adverse situation the
Incharge of Public Station shall be held
liable for the negligence of department and
criminal proceeding."

12. What is interesting is that these
two paragraphs and the averments, therein,
have been sworn on the basis of legal
advice. The submissions, therefore, cannot
be said to be factual assertions. For this
reason alone, even this argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted.

13. Although it has been argued that
no joint meeting had been held prior to the
approval of the gang chart by the District
Magistrate, the same also is without
substance. There is no foundation for such
an assertion in the writ petition or the
supplementary affidavit.

14. It is difficult to accept this argument
also because the petitioner would not be
aware of the factual circumstances. There is
no requirement of any notice of such joint
meeting nor is the accused entitled to
participate in the same. Such position can at
best be culled out from the circumstances of
the case. However, no such circumstances
have been brought to the notice of Court
which would even remotely lead to a
conclusion that no joint meeting as provided
under Rule 5 was not held.

15. In view of the foregoing,
submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, we do not find favour of this Court.

16. The writ petition, under the
circumstances, is devoid of merit and is
dismissed.
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 156
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16327 of 2022
Connected with
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15652 of 2022

Srimati Maya Devi Smarak Siksha Samiti
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sri R.K. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Agarwal Archi Piyush, Sri Pratik
Chandra

(A) Criminal Law - The U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - Sections 3/2 & 14 (1) - Attachment
of property - Section 14(3) - Appointment
of an administrator, Section 15 - Release
of property.
FIR was registered - against one and his gang
members - District Magistrate attached property
owned by accused - under Section 14(1) of Act -
institution was locked from outside - attachment
order was pasted on wall - administrator
appointed - students of the institution - be
transferred to other institutions - directions -
Petitioner (Manager) aggrieved by transfer of
students to another institution - order is a
consequential order - not under challenge.
(Para - 5, 8,9,11)

HELD:-Order dated 14.10.2022, which is a
consequential order, is in compliance with the
order dated 13.10.2022, which has not been
filed or challenged in this writ petition as well as
connected
writ
petition,
and
cannot
be
interfered
with
until
challenged
and
set
aside.(Para - 21)

Writ Petitions dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri R. K. Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Lokesh
Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General for the State
of U.P. and Sri Pratik Chandra, learned
counsel for the respondent No.4.

2. Writ Petition No. 16327 of 2022,
filed by the Manager of Srimati Maya Devi
Smarak Siksha Samiti, seeks quashing of
the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the
Registrar, Professor Rajendra Singh Rajju
Bhaiya University, Prayagraj.

3. The second relief claimed is a
mandamus directing the respondents to
make necessary arrangements for studies of
the students of the institution after opening
the lock put on the institution so that they
may complete their studies.

4. Writ Petition No. 15652 of 2022 is
by two persons who allege to be students of
Srimati Maya Devi Smarak Siksha Samiti
and this writ petition seeks a mandamus
directing respondent nos. 2 and 3 to make
available necessary facilities for study of
the students by opening the lock put on the
institution.

5. Briefly stated, an FIR dated
16.08.2020 was registered giving rise to
Case Crime No. 0218 of 2020, under
Section 3/2 of the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986,
Police Station Adyogik Kshetra, District-