The Allahabad High Court clarified key provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act, emphasizing procedural safeguards for prosecution. In a ruling, the Court quashed an FIR due to flaws, specifically the lack of a corresponding provision and the application of a three-year bar for earlier offenses. This decision highlights the importance of intent and procedural accuracy in gang-related cases.
Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court provided significant clarifications on key provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (commonly referred to as the Gangster Act). In a ruling that has sparked interest, the Court emphasized important procedural safeguards related to who may be prosecuted under the Act, particularly in cases where offenses were committed more than three years before the preparation of a gang chart.
This judgment came while the Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the validity of an FIR registered under the Gangster Act and seeking a direction to prevent coercive action by the State.
Case Background: The Challenge to the FIR
The matter revolved around a writ petition filed by Sukurmpal alias Amit Jat, who sought the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 3(1) of the Gangster Act (which penalizes gang-related actions). The petitioner argued that the FIR, lodged in February 2024, was procedurally flawed as it was based on a chargesheet from December 2020. Since more than three years had passed since the chargesheet’s filing, Jat contended that the bar on proceeding against him, as per Rule 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, applied in his case.
Read Also: Nawazuddin’s Brother Arrested for Cheating in UP’s Muzaffarnagar
The Division Bench of Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal quashed the FIR for not specifying the corresponding provision under the Act, highlighting procedural gaps. While doing so, the Bench adhered to a previous judgment, despite that judgment being under review by a larger bench.
Clarifications on the Gangster Act Provisions
The Court, in its ruling, took the opportunity to make certain clarifications regarding the application of both the Gangster Act and the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021.
- Definition of a Gang and Criminal Liability: Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act defines a “gang” as a group of individuals involved in anti-social activities, either individually or collectively, using violence, intimidation, or coercion for unfair material or pecuniary gain. However, the Court clarified that simply being a member of such a group does not warrant prosecution unless the gang’s actions fall under the purview of the Gangster Act’s specific provisions. Rule 3 of the 2021 Rules, which outlines the conditions of criminal liability, mirrors the prescription of Section 2(b). The Court stated that for an offense to be prosecuted under the Gangster Act, it must have been committed for the purpose of disturbing public order or obtaining unlawful material or financial benefits. This distinction, the Court stressed, is essential in determining whether an individual’s actions warrant prosecution under the Act.
- Rule 4(2) and the Three-Year Bar: Rule 4(2) clarifies that a person may be presumed part of a gang if they commit an offense that falls under the Gangster Act, even if not all members of the gang participated. However, the Court noted the proviso to Rule 4(2), which states that if an offense was committed more than three years before the preparation of the gang chart, the accused cannot be considered part of the gang unless the offense falls within the specific “anti-social activities” listed under Section 2(b). The Court ruled that the three-year bar applies in cases where offenses committed earlier do not fall within the Gangster Act’s provisions. In other words, even if a gang member committed an offense listed under Section 2(b), they cannot be prosecuted as a gang member if the act occurred over three years ago and did not aim to disturb public order or secure unlawful gains.
The Court’s Application in Jat’s Case
In the case at hand, Jat’s main argument was that the February 2024 FIR was lodged more than three years after the original charge sheet in December 2020. He relied on the proviso to Rule 4(2), arguing that this time lapse protected him from being prosecuted as a gang member. He further pointed to the High Court’s 2023 judgment in Asim alias Hassim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, where an FIR was quashed for not mentioning the corresponding provision of Section 2(b) in the charge sheet, as support for his case.
Read Also: “Prima facie, this is illegal”: Supreme Court Slams UP Police
The State, represented by Advocate Ratan Singh, countered that the Asim case had been referred to a larger bench for reconsideration. Nevertheless, the High Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the referral to a larger bench did not invalidate the legal principles laid down in the earlier ruling. The Court firmly held that the law remains settled until the larger bench delivers a contrary judgment.
Procedural Flaw: Absence of the Corresponding Provision in the FIR
The Court also reiterated the importance of procedural correctness when filing charges under the Gangster Act. The FIR lodged against Jat did not specify the corresponding provision of the Act under which the alleged offense fell. According to Rule 6 of the 2021 Rules, any gang chart prepared must clearly mention if an act falls within Section 2(b) of the Gangster Act, along with the relevant legal provision. Failure to do so renders the FIR “illegal,” as per the Court’s earlier judgment in the Asim case.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the FIR and the gang chart prepared by the State, calling them legally flawed for failing to meet the required procedural standards.
Conclusion: A Landmark Ruling with Procedural Implications
This judgment from the Allahabad High Court serves as a significant reminder of the procedural intricacies involved in prosecuting under the Gangster Act. The Court’s clarifications reinforce that the intent behind the offense, the time frame in which it occurred, and the proper citation of legal provisions are all crucial in determining whether an individual can be prosecuted as a gang member.
This ruling may have far-reaching implications for ongoing and future cases under the Gangster Act, particularly those involving technical or procedural challenges.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
