The High Court of Allahabad analyzed Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 and observed that violence in one form or the other is not a sine qua non (precondition) for a group of persons to qualify as a ‘gang’.
Justice J.J. Munir remarked that the twin object of disturbing public order or gaining any under temporal, pecuniary advantage etc. may be achieved through the practice of violence, threat or show of violence, or intimidation or coercion or otherwise.
Brief Facts:
The First Information Report (FIR) leading to the current charge sheet was filed on 28.07.2018 at P.S. Naini, which was then in the Allahabad district but is now in Prayagraj, by Pradeep Kumar Mishra, the Station House Officer at the time. The FIR alleges that Vinod B. Lal and David Dutta, along with a gang of two, are involved in organized economic crimes using fraud and deceit, as described in Chapters XVI, XVII, and XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The gang allegedly tampered with and forged documents to accumulate wealth and instilled fear in members of the public to prevent them from reporting or testifying against them. Several other FIRs were also lodged against Vinod B. Lal and others, and after investigation, charge sheets were filed against them for various offences. The District Magistrate approved a gang chart relating to the gang, of which Vinod B. Lal was the leader and David Dutta the sole member, on 28.07.2018, and the present crime was registered under the Act of 1986 based on this information.
Contentions of the Applicant:
Mr Manish Tiwari, the applicant's Senior Advocate, argued that even if the allegations in the charge sheet are true, the applicant cannot be charged under Sections 2/3 of the Act of 1986. He cites Section 2(b) of the Act and explains that for a group to be considered a gang, two essential ingredients are required: violence or disturbance of public order and acting for the purpose of pecuniary gain. He asserted that the applicant has not committed any offences involving violence or disturbance of public order, so even if there are allegations of pecuniary gain, the Act of 1986 would not apply.
Furthermore, Mr Tiwari noted that the five base cases registered against the applicant cannot provide a foundation for the present prosecution under the Act of 1986, as the applicant has been given a judicial reprieve in each of those crimes. Finally, Mr Tiwari argued that the gang chart has been vitiated due to violations of Rules 5(2), 5(3), 16, and 17 of The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. He contended that non-adherence to these rules has invalidated the basis of the crime registration, police report, and prosecution.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that violence or disturbance of public order is not the only factor that defines a gang under the Act of 1986. A group of people who use violence, threat, intimidation, coercion, or any other means to disturb public order or gain undue advantage, can qualify as a gang. The words 'or otherwise' are not to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding words and suggest that the group may act in any manner to achieve the object of disturbing public order or gaining an undue advantage.
The court did not find merit in the submission that violence is a sine qua non for a group to be considered a gang. The court did not accept the applicant's argument that there is no allegation of violence or threat of violence against him or any other member of the group, as the FIRs have not been annexed. It was observed that the group of people can have two alternate objects to qualify as a gang - disturbance of public order or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material, or other advantages for themselves or others.
The decision of the Court:
This application failed and was hereby dismissed.
Case Title: Vinod Bihari Lal vs State of U.P. and another
Coram: Hon’ble Justice J.J. Munir
Case no.: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36921 of 2019
Advocate for the Applicant: Rajiv Lochan Shukla
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :