Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. The applicant has challenged a charge sheet dated 27.09.2007 (Charge sheet No. 184 of 2007) submitted against him under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station- Mauranipur, DistrictJhansi.

2. This Court has passed following order on 22.11.2007 :-

“Heard Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and have perused the record.

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit.

List immediately thereafter.

Further proceedings of G.S.T. No. 134 of 2007 (Case Crime No. 112 of 2007) State vs. Salim and another under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, P.S.- Mauranipur, District Jhansi pending in the Court of Special Judge (Gangster Act) Jhansi, shall remain stayed till the next date of listing.”

3. The above referred interim order was last extended on 19.02.2009 and thereafter the matter was heard on 12.09.2022 when the judgment was reserved. It appears that despite a direction of Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299 [LQ/SC/2018/411] and that the interim order was last extended on 19.02.2009, yet proceedings against the applicant remained stayed.

4. Sri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that a gang chart was prepared for the purpose of above offence wherein following details of two criminal cases were mentioned :-

(i) Case Crime No. 111 of 2004 under Section 394, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Mauranipur wherein after investigation, charge sheet dated 09.07.2004 was submitted.

(ii) Case Crime No. 429 of 2004 under Sections 395, 397, 412 I.P.C., Police Station- Mauranipur wherein after investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 28.07.2004.

5. Learned counsel submitted that it is a case of double jeopardy as the applicant is facing trial in above referred two cases as well as the contents of impugned charge sheet are based on offence allegedly occurred in the year 2004 wherein F.I.R. under Gangster Act was lodged in the year 2007, as such he has to face separate trial on similar offence. There were no complaint between 2004 and 2007 as well as after 2007 and till date. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against applicant under the abovereferred sections are illegal.

6. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Subhash; Gulab Singh; Anish vs. State of U.P. (1997 0 Supreme (All) 314) : 1998 1 JIC 405 wherein Division Bench of this Court has considered following four questions :-

“(1) There could not be a prosecution under the for a single incident as the spoke of "anti-social activities" (in plural ).

(2) Prosecution under the for past offences was not thought of.

(3) If at all the created a new concept of an offence, there must be some allegation that any act or omission towards the commission of the offence was there.

(4) The words "indulges in" as used in Section 2 of thewould only mean that there should be habituality of the acts covered by Section!.”

and answered in following manner :-

“12. We do not find any reason to differ from the opinion of the Division Bench in respect of the meaning of the words "indulges in" and we do accept the further view of the Division Bench expressed in that case that there was no need of any habituality in indulging in the anti-social activities, as detailed in the, and we may quote the words of the Division Bench to say "if the legislature had the intention that

the would be applicable only to past proven acts, there was no bar for the legislature to have used the word "habitually" within the definition of gang. " When this word was intentionally dropped, we may not add it to give any restricted or wider meaning to the definition of the offence. Accordingly, point No. 4, as indicated above, is answered in the negative.

14. …...When a specific offence has been created, it is open to be punished even for a single act, if it is covered by the requirements of law. We, thus, answered point No. 1 framed by us.

17. …….. We may, therefore, conclude that allegations of past acts may not be the sole criterion for institution of a case for an offence under this Act, rather if there be old cases pending on the date of institution of the F. I. R. under any other offence and for the same set of facts a case under this Act is also instituted, then those cases should also come to the special Court to avoid double jeopardy to the accused. We may, therefore, answer point No. 2 with the observation that a prosecution under the for past offence was not thought of unless elements of the offence under this 'act are made out.”

7. Per contra, Sri Deepak Kapoor, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the applicant along with other gang members were involved in anti social activities and are facing serious charges referred above as well as during investigation, criminal history of 9 cases of applicant and other gang members were also found.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

9. This Court in a recent judgment of Irfan and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, Application u/s 482 No. 10328 of 2022 has discussed the law on Gangster Act which is referred hereinafter :-

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

Further in Subhash (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court has also mentioned the object and reasons for the enactment of this Act, which are also referred hereinafter :-

“gangsters and anti-social activities were on the increase in the State posing threat to lives and properties of the citizens. The existing measures were not found effective enough to cope with this new menace. With a view to break the gangs by punishing the gangsters and to nip in the bud their conspiratorial designs it was considered necessary to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with gangsters and anti-social activities in the State.

since the State Legislature was not in session and immediate legislative action in the matter was necessary, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Antisocial Activities (Prevention) Ordinance, 1986 (U. P. Ordinance No. 4 of the 1986) was promulgated by the Governor on January 15; 1986, after obtaining prior instructions of the President.

he Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Bill, 1986 is accordingly introduced with certain necessary modifications to replace the aforesaid Ordinance.”

10. It is also important to note that in Subhash (supra), the Division Bench has held that there was no need of any habituality for indulging in anti-social activities. The only reason given by the Division Bench that all the cases mentioned in the gang chart as well as criminal case arising out of Gangster Act may be tried by one Court so that double jeopardy be avoided. Further in Irfan (supra), the Court has held that in some circumstances, even in absence of any prior F.I.R., proceedings under Gangster Act may be initiated.

11. In the present case, in the F.I.R. itself, it was specifically stated that the applicant was indulged in anti-social activities along with other gang members and details of two cases were mentioned. It was also specifically mentioned that the applicant and other accused persons were facing other criminal cases, details of which are part of investigation.

12. So far as double jeopardy is concerned, the Gangster Act is a special enactment, enacted for the objects and grounds as mentioned above and criminal proceedings could be initiated under the said Act for commission of any offence mentioned in Section 2 and 3 of the. Therefore, averment made in the F.I.R. as well as charge sheet under the Gangster Act are specific and has no bearing with trial of other cases either mentioned in the gang chart or in the criminal history of the applicant. They can run simultaneously and independently. The evidence are also separate and independent in the respected criminal trials.

13. Section 300 Cr.P.C. provides that person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence, however, the offence of criminal case mentioned in the gang chart are different whereas the offence under Gangster Act are different. Both have different ingredients. Therefore, this is not a case of double jeopardy. Proceedings under Gangster Act may go on independently without any influence of trial of cases mentioned in gang chart or part of criminal investigation.

14. In view of above, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant are sans merit, hence, prayer made in this application is rejected.

15. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed