# Sartaj v. State of U.P. Oposite Party

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1658
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-13
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11645 of 2007
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sartaj-v-state-of-u-p-oposite-party-45033
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

acquitted of charges levied under Section
384/506 IPC read with Section 7 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act - during the
pendency of the abovementioned trial
proceedings, an FIR was lodged under
Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 -
applicant cannot be tried for the same
offence again - proceedings under the
Gangster
Act
are
not
independent
proceedings - trial under the Gangster
Act is illegal and unjustified.

Application u/s 482 allowed. (E-10)
List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Ravinder Talwar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1659
entire order of Court shows that Court
found that action in question amounts to
playing fraud with Court and unauthorized
and unwarranted invocation of prerogative
writ jurisdiction that too involving such a
serious matter cannot be encouraged
which shows that Court was clearly of the
opinion that larger public interest required
inquiry in the matter. For considering the
compliance of requirement of Section 340
Cr.P.C. one has to look into substance of
the order and should not expect a technical
literal compliance by using the word stated
in the Statute. If order shows substantive
compliance and requirement of statute,
such
order
does
not
require
any
interference.

28. Hence, I do not find any
substance in the argument advanced on
behalf of applicant.

29. No other point has been argued.

30. Application lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed.

31. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1658

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 11645 of 2007

Sartaj ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Oposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Anil Mullick
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Double Jeopardy - applicant was
acquitted of charges levied under Section
384/506 IPC read with Section 7 of
Criminal Law Amendment Act - during the
pendency of the abovementioned trial
proceedings, an FIR was lodged under
Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 -
applicant cannot be tried for the same
offence again - proceedings under the
Gangster
Act
are
not
independent
proceedings - trial under the Gangster
Act is illegal and unjustified.

Application u/s 482 allowed. (E-10)
List of cases cited: -

1. Pritam Singh and anr Vs. State of Punjab
AIR 1956 Supreme Court 415

2. N.R. Gosh Vs. The State of West Bengal AIR
196 Supreme Court (SC) 239

3.
Manipur
Adminstration,
Manipur
Vs.
Thokchon Veere Singh AIR 1965 (SC) 87

4. Lalta and ors Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1970 (SC) 1381

5. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Shiv Singh
1971 (1) SCC 422

6. Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (1972) 2
SCC 466

7. Masood Khan Vs. State of U.P. (1974) 3 SCC 469

8. V.K. Agarwal, Assistant Collector of Customs
Vs. Vasant Raj Bhagwan Ji Bhatia and ors
(1988) 3 SCC 467

9. Kolla Vira Raghav Rao Vs. Gorantia
Vlalalalalal Rao, (2011) 2 SCC 703

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

1. Heard Sri Anil Mullick learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav
1660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prasad, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the
state.

2. This 482 Cr.P.C. application has
been preferred for quashing the charge
sheet No.119 dated 13.8.2001, under
Section 2/3 The U.P. Gangster & Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986,
Police Station Kotwali, District Meerut,
pending in the Court of learned Special
Judge Gangster Act, Meerut.

3. The facts of the case are that a first
information report was lodged against the
applicant as case crime No.166 of 2000,
under Sections 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster &
Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986, Police Station Kotwali, District
Meerut and only on the basis of a single
case i.e. case crime no.166 of 2000, under
Section 384/506 I.P.C. read with Section 7
Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police
Station Kotwali, District Meerut, after
investigation the Investigating Officer has
submitted charge sheet against four
persons including the applicant. The trial
of the said case commenced and after the
trial the applicant was acquitted by the
judgment and order dated 27.4.2001
passed in Criminal Case No.871 of 2000.

4. During the pendency of the
aforesaid trial a first information report
was lodged against the accused, including
the applicant on 13.8.2000 under Section
2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act
1986
(hereinafter referred to as "Gangster Act")
only. The sole basis of lodging of the first
information report against the applicant
was the implication in case crime no.166
of 2000, under Section 384/506 I.P.C. read
with Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment
Act, Police Station Kotwali, District
Meerut, he was acquitted on 27.4.2001.
Before
acquittal
chargesheet
dated
15.12.2007 was filed against the applicant.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the state stating that the applicant
is an accused in the eye of law who has
involved himself in anti-social activities.
During investigation of the case evidence
also came to light that the applicant
formed a gang which is involved in
extortion of money from innocent people
and therefore he was implicated in the case
under Gangster Act. Even after acquittal in
case crime no.166 of 2000, under Section
384/506 I.P.C. read with Section 7
Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police
Station Kotwali, District Meerut, he
cannot be discharged from the proceedings
under the Gangster Act and he does not
deserve any relief from this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the very basis of initiation of
F.I.R. under Gangster Act was the
statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of case crime no.166 of 2000,
under Section 384/506 I.P.C. read with
Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act,
Police Station Kotwali, District Meerut.
Learned counsel submitted that said basis
for initiation of F.I.R. under Gangster Act
has been disbelieved by the trial Court as
the applicant has been acquitted in the
aforesaid crime, which acquittal order has
not been challenged as yet. It is further
contended that once very basis of initiation
of Gangster's Act proceedings diminished,
the entire trial procedure and rigmarole of
proceedings of criminal trial under that
Act will be nothing but only wastage of
time of Court. The learned counsel for the
applicant has relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Pritam
Singh and another vs. State of Punjab,
AIR, 1956 Supreme Court 415 in support
1 All. Sartaj Vs. State of U.P.
1661
of his contention that once the revisionist
was acquitted by the competent court for
the case crime no.166 of 2000, under
Section 384/506 I.P.C. read with Section 7
Criminal Law Amendment Act, his trial
under the provisions of Gangster Act
would not be justified since the basis of
implication in the case under the Gangsters
Act was the case registered against the
applicant in case crime no.166 of 2000,
under Section 384/506 I.P.C. read with
Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.
His contention is that his trial under the
Gangster's
Act
would
require
trial
regarding the same offence which was not
found to have been proved by the trial
court in the earlier case. He has relied
upon the following observations of the
Apex Court in the above mentioned case:-

"The effect of a verdict of
acquittal pronounced by a competent
Court on a lawful charge and after a
lawful trial is not completely stated by
saying that the person acquitted cannot be
tried again for the same offence. To that it
must be added that the verdict is binding
and
conclusive
in
all
subsequent
proceedings between the parties to the
adjudication.

The maxim 'res judicata pro
veritate accipitur' is no less applicable to
criminal than to civil proceedings. Here,
the appellant having been acquitted at the
first trial on the charge of having
ammunition
in
his
possession,
the
prosecution was bound to accept the
correctness of that verdict and was
precluded from taking any steps to
challenge it at the second trial".

7. In support of his contention
learned counsel has further placed reliance
on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of N.R. Ghosh vs. the State of West
Bengal, AIR 1960 Supreme Court (SC)
239 and has relied upon in paragraph 22 of
the same reads as under:-

"The principle stated in the
section is that when a person has once
been tried by a court of competent
jurisdiction for an offence and convicted
or acquitted of it, he shall not while the
conviction or acquittal remains in force,
be tried again for the same offence. In
order, therefore, that the appellant may
have the benefit of the section he must
have been tried by a court of competent
jurisdiction. Furthermore, such acquittal
must be in force."

8. Reference to the Apex Court
judgment
in
the
case
of
Manipur
Administration, Manipur vs. Thokchon
Veere Singh, AIR 1965 (SC) 87 has also
been made wherein paragraph 6 are as
follows:-

Before referring to the decision
of this Court in Pritam Singh v. State of
Punjab(1) it would be convenient to refer
to and put aside one point for clearing the
ground. Section 403, Criminal Procedure
Code embodies in statutory form the
accepted English rule of autre fois acquit.
This section is as follows:-

"403 (1) A person who has been
once tried by a Court of competent
jurisdiction for an offence and convicted
or acquitted of such offence shall, while
such conviction or acquittal remains in
force, not be liable to be tried again for
the same offence, nor on the same facts for
any offence for which a different charge
from the one made against him might have
been made under s. 236, or for which he
might have been convicted under section
237. (2) A person acquitted or convicted of
any offence may be afterwards tried for
1662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any distinct offence for which a separate
charge might have been made against him
on the former trial under section 235, subsection (1). (3) A person convicted of any
offence constituted by any act causing
consequences which, together with such
act, constituted a different offence from
that of which he was convicted may be
afterwards tried for such last mentioned
offence, if the consequences had not
happened, or were not known to the Court
to have happened, at the time when he was
convicted.

(4)
A
person
acquitted
or
convicted of any offence constituted by any
acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal
or conviction, be subsequently charged
with, and tried for, any other offence
constituted by the same acts which he may
have committed if the Court by which he
was first tried was not competent to try the
offence with which he is subsequently
charged.

(1) A.T.R. 1956 S.C. 415.

(5) Nothing in this section shall
affect the provisions of section 26 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897, or section 188
of this Code.

Explanation-The dismissal of a
complaint, the stopping of proceedings
under section 249, the discharge of the
accused or any entry made upon a charge
under section 273, is not an acquittal for
the purposes of this section." Section 26 of
the General Clauses Act which is referred
to in s. 403 enacts:

"26. Where an act or omission
constitutes an offence under two or more
enactments, then the offender shall be
liable to be prosecuted and punished
under either or any of those enactments,
but shall not be liable to be punished twice
for the same offence."

We
might
also,
in
this
connection, refer to Art. 20(2) of the
Constitution since it makes provision for a
bar against a second prosecution in an
analogous case. That provision reads:

"20(2).
No
person
shall
be
prosecuted and punished for the same offence
more than once." As has been pointed out by
this Court in State of Bombay v. S. L. Apte(1),
both in the case of Art. 20(2) of the
Constitution as well as s. 26 of the General
Clauses Act to operate as a bar the second
prosecution and the consequential punishment
thereunder, must be for "same offence" i.e., an
offence whose ingredients are the same. It has
been pointed out in the same decision that the
V Amendment of the American Constitution
which provides that no person shall be subject,
for the same offence, to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb, proceeds on the same
principle.

9. Reliace on Apex Court judgment
in the case of Lalta and others vs. State of
U.P., AIR 1970 (SC) 1381 has been made,
wherein case of Pritam Singh's (supra)
and
Manipur
Administration's
case
(supra) have been accepted as binding
authorities on the issue. Reference to
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Shiv
Singh 1971 (1) SCC 422 has been made
where Section 26 of the general clauses
Act 1897 were considered regarding the
question of double jeopardy in relation to
prosecution of an accused for single
offence under two enactments and it was
held that Section 26 of the general clauses
Act prevents accused from double penalty.
This judgment has been relied by the
counsel to advance the proposition that the
prosecution of the revisionist under the
general provisions of Indian Penal Code
and then under the provisions of Special
Act i.e., Gangster Act on the basis of
implication in the case under Section
I.P.C., wherein he has been acquitted
should not be permitted.
1 All. Sartaj Vs. State of U.P.
1663

10. Counsel for the applicant has
referred to the judgment, Bhagat Ram vs.
State of Rajasthan (1972) 2 SCC 466,
wherein the Apex Court held that even if
an order of acquittal is passed by Division
Bench of the Court, it is not open for the
third Judge of the same Court in a
subsequent stage of the same proceedings
to convict the person unless the judgment
of the Division Bench is set aside by the
Supreme Court. In view of the principle
embodied in Section 403 I.P.C.

11. The counsel has relied upon the
judgment, Masood Khan vs. State of U.P.
(1974) 3 SCC 469, wherein the issue
decided was that for getting the benefit of
the principle of issue of estoppel both the
proceedings
should
be
criminal
proceedings and where one proceeding is
civil and the other is criminal, the benefit
of this principle will not be extended to the
accused. Reference to V.K. Agrawal,
Assistant Collector of Customs vs. Vasant
Raj Bhagwan Ji Bhatia and others,
(1988) 3 SCC 467 has also been made.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant
has argued that in the present case the
prosecution of the applicant is being made
under the Gangsters Act. After acquittal
under the provisions of I.P.C. If two
constructions are possible one leading to
anamoly, absurdity and unconstitutionality
should be avoided.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant
has relied upon the judgment in the case of
Kolla Vira Raghav Rao vs. Gorantla
Vlalalalalal Rao, (2011) 2 SCC 703. In
this case the Apex Court disapproved the
prosecution of the accused under Section
420 I.P.C. After he was convicted under
Section 138 N.I. Act, holding that the
subsequent prosecution is barred by article
20(2) and Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. once the
facts are the same.

14. After considering the authorities
cited by the counsel for the applicant it is
clear that the applicant was implicated in
the Gangsters Act only on account of
involvement in the case crime no.166 of
2000, under Section 384/506 I.P.C. read
with Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment
Act. The proceedings under the Gangsters
Act are not independent proceedings. The
implication of the applicant in the offence
under the Gangsters Act was only because
of the one case registered against him as
case crime no.166 of 2000, under Section
384/506 I.P.C. read with Section 7
Criminal Law Amendment Act, as clear
from the gang chart annexed with the
affidavit in support of this 482 Cr.P.C.
application. The definition of gang is
given in Section 2(b) which is as follows:-

Section 2:-

(b)"Gang" means a group of
persons, who acting either singly or
collectively, by violence, or threat or show
of violence, or intimidation, or coercion,
or otherwise with the object of disturbing
public order or of gaining any undue
temporal, pecuniary, material or other
advantage for himself or any other person,
indulge in antisocial activities, namely:

(i) offences punishable under
Chapter XVI, or Chapter XVII, or Chapter
XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45
of 1860), or

(ii) distilling or manufacturing
or storing or transporting or importing or
exporting or selling or distributing any
liquor, or intoxicating or dangerous drugs,
or other intoxicants or narcotics or
cultivating any plant, in contravention of
any of the provisions of the U. P. Excise
Act, 1910 (U. P. Act No. 4 of 1910), or the
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
1664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Substances Act, 1985 (Act No. 61 of 1985),
or any other law for the time being in
force, or

(iii)
occupying
or
taking
possession
of
immovable
property
otherwise than in accordance with law, or
setting-up false claims for title or
possession of immovable property whether
in himself or any other person, or

(iv) preventing or attempting to
prevent any public servant or any witness
from discharging his lawful duties, or

(v) offences punishable under the
Suppression of *[Immoral Traffic in
Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act No. 104
of 1956)], or

(vi) offences punishable under
Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act,
1867 (Act No. 3 of 1867), or

(vii) preventing any person from
offering
bids
in
auction
lawfully
conducted, or tender, lawfully invited, by
or
on
behalf
of
any
Government
department, local body or public or
private undertaking, for any lease or
rights or supply of goods or work to be
done, or (viii) preventing or disturbing the
smooth running by any person of his
lawful business, profession, trade or
employment or any other lawful activity
connected therewith, or

(ix) offences punishable under
Section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code (Act
No. 45 of 1860), or in preventing or
obstructing any public election being lawfully
held, by physically preventing the voter from
exercising his electoral rights, or (x) inciting
others to resort to violence to disturb
communal harmony, or (xi) creating panic,
alarm or terror in public, or

(xii) terrorising or assaulting
employees or owners or occupiers of
public or private undertakings or factories
and causing mischief in respect of their
properties, or

(xiii) inducing or attempting to
induce any person to go to foreign
countries on false representation that any
employment, trade or profession shall be
provided to him in such foreign country, or

(xiv) kidnapping or abducting
any person with intent to extort ransom, or

(xv)
diverting
or
otherwise
preventing any aircraft or public transport
vehicle from following its scheduled
course.

15. A perusal of the aforesaid
sections shows that the applicant was
implicated in an offence under chapter 16,
I.P.C. and therefore he was implicated in
the case under the Gangsters Act. There is
only one case shown against the applicant
in the gang chart in which the applicant
was acquitted by the competent Court and
therefore his implication and trial under
Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act was not
justified.

16. From the law of the Apex Court
as discussed above it is crystal clear that
the trial of the applicant for an offence
under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act is
not justified. In view of the fact that only
one case is registered against him and he
has been acquitted in that case.

17.

In
view
of
the
above
consideration of the facts of the case and
law cited the charge sheet No.119 dated
13.8.2001, under Section 2/3 The U.P.
Gangster
&
Anti
Social
Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station
Kotwali, District Meerut, pending in the
Court of learned Special Judge Gangster
Act, Meerut, is hereby quashed.

18. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. henceforth is allowed.
----------
1 All. Sartaj Vs. State of U.P.
1665
(2020)1ILR 1664

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 27051 of 2016

Sanjay Verma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Sri Shashi
Bhushan Kunwar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Sri V.K. Baranwal

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 -
This Court is not to give any opinion about
facts of the case or any proceeding regarding
it-Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet and Magistrate applied its legal mind
and thereby, took cognizance over this
offence under Section 354 of IPC, which was
substantiated by facts on record-This Court in
exercise of inherent power under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. is never expected to make
meticulous analysis of facts and evidence for
filing of charge-sheet or not-Charge-sheet
has been filed on the basis of evidence
collected by Investigating Officer-No misuse
of
process
of
law-
This
appeal
(sic
application) merits its dismissal-Criminal
application dismissed-Applicant directed to
surrender before the court below, within 30
days and apply for bail.

Application
u/s
482
Cr.P.C
finally
disposed of. (E-3)

List of cases cited: -

1. St. of A. P. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6)
SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767

2. Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474
3. Monica Kumar Vs. St. of U.P, (2008) 8 SCC
781

4. Popular Muthiah Vs. St., Rep.by Insp. of
Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296

5. Dhanlakshmi Vs. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990)
Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494

6. St. of Bih.Vs. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ
1005: AIR 1989 SC 1

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 Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. This application under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. has been filed by Sanjay Verma
against State of U.P. and another, with a
prayer for setting aside impugned chargesheet and cognizance taking order dated
31.5.2016, in Criminal Case No. 889 of
2016, State Vs. Sanjay Verma, under
Sections 354 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali,
District Ballia, pending before Court of
A.C.J.M. Ist, Ballia.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A. representing
the State.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
argued that opposite party No. 2 Rekha
Verma, who is informant-complainant of
present case, lodged under Section 354 of
IPC, is an accused in a case of murder of
Omji Verma, which was manipulated by
her to be shown as a railway accident
death whereas FIR was got lodged and
matter was investigated wherein, final
report was submitted, against which
protest petition was filed and order for