# Sumit Punjabi @ Sumit Arora v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 823
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-13
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 18360 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sumit-punjabi-sumit-arora-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51359
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social
Activities(Prevention)
Act,1986 - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial
Activities(Prevention)
Rules
2021-
Rule
24-quashing
of
proceedings-
non-compliance
with
Rule 24-Charge sheet was filed after
21 months and 2 days violating Rule
24
which
mandates
investigation
completion
within
six
months-Ten
investigating officers handled the case
but none adhered to the procedural
requirements-Held,
A
strict
departmental
inquiry
was
directed
against the investigating officers-the
police were granted the liberty to
prepare
a
fresh
gang
chart
in
compliance with the Rule.(Para 1to 15)

B.
Rule
24
mandates
that
an
investigation
must
be
completed
within six months from the date of
registration
of
FIR-A
maximum
extension of three months is allowed
with approval but in no case can the
investigation
extend
beyond
one
year.(Para 6)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

## Text

12 All. Sumit Punjabi @ Sumit Arora Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
823

10. In view of the above facts and
discussions, present application is allowed.
The impugned order dated 15.10.2024 is in
violation of the provision of Section 223 of
B.N.S.S., and therefore, the same is hereby
set aside.

11. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sitapur is directed to pass fresh order after
recording the statement of the complainant
as well as witnesses of the present case.
---------
(2024) 12 ILRA 823
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 18360 of 2024

Sumit Punjabi @ Sumit Arora ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ajay Nand Pandey, Shravana Kumar Yadav,
Syed Imran Ibrahim

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social
Activities(Prevention)
Act,1986 - U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial
Activities(Prevention)
Rules
2021-
Rule
24-quashing
of
proceedings-
non-compliance
with
Rule 24-Charge sheet was filed after
21 months and 2 days violating Rule
24
which
mandates
investigation
completion
within
six
months-Ten
investigating officers handled the case
but none adhered to the procedural
requirements-Held,
A
strict
departmental
inquiry
was
directed
against the investigating officers-the
police were granted the liberty to
prepare
a
fresh
gang
chart
in
compliance with the Rule.(Para 1to 15)

B.
Rule
24
mandates
that
an
investigation
must
be
completed
within six months from the date of
registration
of
FIR-A
maximum
extension of three months is allowed
with approval but in no case can the
investigation
extend
beyond
one
year.(Para 6)

The application is disposed of. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant
and learned AGA for the State.

2. Through the instant proceedings, the
applicant
has
challenged
the
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
10.04.2024 on a limited ground that the
Rules framed under the Provisions of U.P.
Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 have not been
complied with by the police.

3. Thus, the learned counsel for the
applicant submits that; (i) besides Rules 16
and 17 of the Rules 2021, Rule 24 for
expeditious investigation has been violated,
(ii) the FIR was registered on 29.4.2022,
whereas the charge sheet was filed on
3.2.2024 almost after a delay of 21 months
and two days, (iii) the applicant is a
businessman and he is arrayed as an
accused in the base case on the basis of
confessional
statement
of
co-accused,
which is impermissible under the law, (iv)
the applicant's arrest was stayed by this
Court vide order dated 1.8.2022, on Court's
prima facie, satisfaction that the applicant
is innocent and has been arrayed as an
accused by the police because of ulterior
reasons.
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. Per contra, learned AGA states that
the applicant is a habitual offender and
three cases have been registered against the
applicant of similar nature and there are
serious allegations of running a gambling
racket for illegal gain.

5. Vide order dated 10.12.2024, all the
Investigating Officers who had been part of
the investigation were directed to present
virtually through video conferencing, and
in compliance of the order, the S.S.P.
Baghpat appeared virtually along with
Investigating Officers and apprised to the
Court that the FIR was registered on
29.4.2022, thereafter, the investigation was
conducted by ten Investigating Officers and
on completion of the investigation the
charge sheet was filed on 3.2.2024. The
name of Investigation Officers along with
the period for which the investigation was
remained with them, are outlined herein in
tabular format:-

Sr
No.

Name of the
Investigator
Start
of
investigation
and
final
submission
of report
Period
of
investigation
1
Inspector
Shri Madan
Pal Singh
29.4.2022
01 day
2
In-charge
Inspector
Shri
Novendra
Singh Sirohi
from
30.4.2022 to
13.08.2022
03
months
and 13 days
3.
Inspector
Shri Indrapal
Singh
from
01.09.2022 to
27.10.2022
1 month and
27 days
4.
S.H.O.
Shri
Virendra
Rana
from
19.11.2022 to
20.11.2022
02 days

5.

S.I.
Shri
Bhurendra
Singh

from
15.12.2022 to
16.12.2022
02 days

6.
In-charge
Inspector
Shri Satendra
Singh Siddhu
From
10.01.2023 to
20.5.2023
04
months
and 10 days
7.
In-charge
Inspector
from
18.06.2023 to
01 month and
15 days
Shri
Kaushlendra
Singh
3.8.2023
8.
In-charge
Inspector
Shri Bachchu
Singh
from
13.08.2023 to
28.09.2023
01 month and
15 days
9.
In-charge
Inspector
Shri Pradeep
Dodiyal
from
2.10.2023 to
2.12.2023
02 months
10.
Inspector
Shri Jitendra
Kumar
from
4.12.2023 to
3.2.2024
02 months

6. For clarity, Rule 24 of the U.P.
Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Rules, 2021 is extracted
herein below:

"The
rule
stipulates
the
investigation
shall
be
conducted
expeditiously within six months of the
registration
of
the
case
and
in
unavoidable
circumstances with
the
approval of the District Police InCharge, a maximum extension of three
months can be provided but in no case
the investigation cannot be extended for
more than one year."

7. In the instant case, the charge sheet
was filed after a delay of 21 months and 2
days and the same is in contravention of
Rule 24.

8. The provisions of Gangsters Act is
stringent in nature and the idea is to punish
declared criminals who have deliberately
chosen the life of crime. The activities of
these
professionals
perpetrators
of
organized crimes and violence, and orgy
has a far more baneful effect on the health
and morals of the society and its people. If
the activity of such criminal are subjected
to the same punishment as that other
ordinary criminals, the confidence of public
in the efficacy and efficiency of the state
administration is bound to shake.
12 All. Sumit Punjabi @ Sumit Arora Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
825

9. It is noticed that the Investigating
Officers have not followed the procedure of
the Act in a letter and spirit, may be for the
reasons best known to them. The State
Government
had
issued
various
Government Orders and Notifications to
streamline the procedure to invoke the
provisions
of
the
Gangsters
Act.
Unfortunately, the police have not been
following them in letter and spirit.
Therefore, it was desired by the State to
frame the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 under
the Act and that is how the U.P. Gangsters
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021 came into existence in exercise
of power conferred by Section 23 of the
U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 in suppression of all
earlier
Government
Orders
and
Notifications made thereunder.

10.
In
the
instant
case,
the
investigation
travelled
through
ten
Investigating Officers and none of the
Investigating Officer followed Rule 24 of
the Rules, 2021 the reason best known to
the Investigating Officers, and the S.S.P.
and District Magistrate as well who had
approved the gang chart did not care about
compliance of rules. Its premature in
instant proceedings to come to any
conclusion as to who is responsible for the
delay in investigation and at whose behest
the
investigation
has
been
delayed
intentionally
or
unintentionally.
The
ignorance of law or statutory provision is
no excuse based on the most basic and
cardinal principles of jurisprudence of law.
There is a thin line between knowing
everything and well informed and this
particular role expects a prudent officer to
understand
his
role,
duties
and
responsibilities of the post which he is
holding, the onus remains individual
officers to act diligence, integrity, and
awareness of the law they are sworn to
uphold.

11. The legal maxim ignorantia juris
non excusat-is a corner stone of legal
systems
globally,
emphasizing
that
individuals are presumed to know the law
and cannot evade liability or responsibility
by claiming ignorance. The police officers
are entrusted with the enforcement of laws
and the administration of justice, this
principles
assumes
high
significance
particularly when the police officers fail to
fulfil their statutory duties on conducting
investigation within prescribed time frame
knowingfully the repercussions of non
following the statutory duty in a time
bound manner. It could be a case of
negligence, lack of adequate training, or
wilful misconduct, but none of these
excuses absolve the police officer from
liability therefore, ensuring accountability
through legal process and institutional
reforms by imparting training is essential to
uphold justice and public trust in law
enforcement.

12.
Based
on
the
aforesaid
deliberations, it cannot be construed that all
ten Investigating Officers were not aware
about the Rule 24 of the U.P. Gangsters
and Anti Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021. Giving benefit to the criminals
who is systematically operating a gang
which is involved in gambling and other
cases in similar nature would sake the
people's
confidence
in
police
administration in upholding the rule of law
therefore, a time bound departmental
inquiry-not for namesake be conducted
with a message to other police officers to
realize the importance of position and
function they are discharging so that a
strong message may go. The Investigating
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Officer involved in the case for first six
months shall not be given any field posting
- any posting where the officers would be
in-
charge/I.O./supervise
of
the
investigation - till the completion of the
departmental inquiry initiated by the S.S.P.
Baghpat.

13.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
deliberations, the entire proceedings of
Special
Sessions
Trial
No.
15/2024,
Session Case No. 461 of 2024 titled as
State vs. Anil @ Kalu and others arising
out of Case Crime No. 389 of 2022, under
Section 2/3 Gangster Act, P.S. Baghpat,
District Baghpat are quashed qua all the
accused named in the charge sheet, with
liberty to the police to prepare fresh gang
chart in accordance with the U.P. Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Rules, 2021.

14. The instant application is disposed
of accordingly.

15. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to transmit forthwith a copy of this
order to the D.G.P. Uttar Pradesh for strict
compliance.
---------
(2024) 12 ILRA 826
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 35434 of 2024

Smt. Maya Rani Rao ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sangeeta Shukla, Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi
Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Applicability of Section
319 Cr.P.C. in Cheque Bounce Proceedings
under Section 138 N.I. Act - Impleadment
of Company under Section 138 N.I. Act at
post
cognizance
stage
-
Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 141
& 142 - The Code of criminal procedure,
1973 - Section 319 - If initial action is not
in consonance with law, all subsequent
and consequential proceedings would fall
through for the reason that illegality
strikes at the root of the order -"sublato
fundamento cadit opus" - foundation
being
removed,
structure/work
falls,
comes into play and applies on all scores
in the present case.(Para - 18)

(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -
Section 138 - If the proceeding under
Section 138 N.I. Act is initiated on
bouncing of the cheque issued on behalf
of the company, without impleading the
company then at post cognizance stage
company
can
be
permitted
to
be
impleaded if apart from fulfilling other
condition of Section 138 N.I. Act, a
demand notice was also sent to the
company within the prescribed period
subject to the condition that the delay has
been properly explained as required under
the proviso of Section 142(1)(b) of N.I.
Act. (Para - 25)

Cheque issued by M/s Anupam Omarion
Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. - signed by its
director - dishonored due to insufficient funds -
complainant failed to implead company in the
initial complaint despite sending a demand
notice to it - application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. was filed for impleading the company -
rejected due to being time-barred -hence
application.(Paras 1-8,28)

HELD: - Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
not maintainable to summon a company for the
offense of Section 138 N.I. Act after the expiry
of the limitation period, even though the cheque
in question was issued on behalf of the
company. Impleadment application in the form
of
amendment
is
maintainable
in
such