Allahabad High Court
Ranchit Kumar Urf Tinku Urf Yogindra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 October, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:189075
Reserved On:25.09.2025 Delivered On:29.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3208 of 2025
Ranchit Kumar Urf Tinku Urf Yogindra
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Lalji Yadav, Yashpal Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
In Chamber
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
1. Despite service of notice on opposite party no.2 no one has turned up to oppose this revision.
2. Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist; learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the material on record.
3. This criminal revision has been filed praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed and process of N.B.W. and 82 Cr.P.C., issued against the revisionist by Special Judge (Gangster) Court No., 6 Kanpur Dehat, in S.S.T. No. 19/2013, (State Vs. Rohit Yadav) arising out of case crime no. 317/2012, under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station- Bilhour, District- Kanpur Nagar.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist was implicated in the case under section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-social Activities(Prevention Act), by means of gang chart recommended by the District Magistrate on 04.07.2012 and case was registered against the revisionist on 05.07.2012 on the basis of implication in three cases which are as follows:-
(i). Case Crime No. 201/2012, under section 395/397 IPC and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Bilhour, District- Kanpur Nagar:
(ii). Case Crime No. 204/2012, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, Police Station Bilhour, District- Kanpur Nagar and
(iii) Case Crime No. 205/2012, under sections 25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Bilhour, District- Kanpur Nagar.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in all the above three cases, the revisionist was declared juvenile below 18 years of age. The date of birth of revisionist is 13.07.1995 and he was aged about 16 years and 9 months as on 17.04.2012 when the offence alleged in case crime no. 201/2012, was allegedly committed by him. Thereafter, he was implicated in case crime no. 204/2012, regarding offence which took place on 27.05.2012. The incident in case crime no. 205/2012, took place on 08.04.2012 and he was aged about 16 years, 9 months and 5 days at the time of aforesaid incident. His implication under the Gangsters Act was made on 05.07.2012. Therefore, there is difference of less than 2 months in occurrence of all the cases. At the most, he was aged about 16 years and 10 months at the time of implication in the case under the Gangsters Act.
6. The certified copies of the orders passed in the three cases forming the subject matter of implication under the Gangsters Act have been brought on record before this Court alongwith photocopy of the transfer certificate of class-10th.
7. This Court finds that the proceedings under the Gangsters Act are based of three cases wherein the revisionist was already declared juvenile, below 17 years of age. Special court has held that the judgments/orders passed in other cases are not relevant. However, in the present case, the orders of the base cases are relevant for the purposes of deciding the issue of juvenility since the proceedings under the Gangsters Act are based on the proceedings of the three bases cases.
8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the orders of the Special Judge are not correct. Further, the finding of the special court that Rule 27 of the U.P. Gangsters And Anti-social Activities (Prevention Rules), 2021 was incorporated in the Rules only on 27.12.2021, therefore, it shall not be apply to the case of the revisionist does not seems to be correct.
9. It is settled law that benefit of the amended provisions is extended to the accused at the time of the final judgment of the case, in case the amendment comes in force during pendency of the case/trial. However, proviso to Rule 27 aforesaid excludes the benefit of Rule 27 in case the act of the juvenile falls under the category of offence mentioned in Rule 22.
10. For ready reference Rule 22 and Rule 27 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention Rules), 2021 are being quoted hereinbelow:-
" Rule - 22. Criminal history not mandatory and sections of the Act can be imposed in the course of investigation.
(1) A single act/omission will also constitute an offence under the Act, and First Information Report may be registered on the basis of a single case i.e., it is not mandatory that any criminal history must be recorded and alleged before registering an offence under the Act.
(2) The Act may also come into force on a single prosecution in certain class of cases, such as if it appears that the gang has committed a single offence mentioned in Sections 302, 376-D, 395, 396 or 397 of the Penal Code out of the offences mentioned in sub-clause(i) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act or sub-clauses (ii), (iii), (v), (vii), (x), (xii), (xiv), (xv), (xvii), (xviii), (xix), (xx) or (xxi) of clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, which is presently under investigation, and the offence under this Act is being proved by collected evidence, then along with the criminal act under consideration, the gang-chart should also be approved by the concerned Commissioner of Police/District Magistrate involved in the investigation of the said offence and the provisions of the Act can be imposed while investigating both the offences together in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Further, the charge sheet can be sent to the Special Court constituted under the Act.
Rule - 27. Act not applicable to minor generally.
If the accused are minors, and their age is less than 18 years, then they should not be included in the gang-chart:
Provided that if the act of a juvenile falls under the category of offences mentioned in Rule 22 and his age is more than 16 years, then action can be taken against him under the relevant provisions of the Act, subject to the decision of the District Level Supervision Committee mentioned in Rule 64."
11. Rule 27 read with Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules makes it clear that if the juvenile was under the category of offences mentioned in Rule 22 and his age was more than 16 years, then the action can be taken against him under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters And Anti-social Activities(Prevention) Act. In the present case, this Court finds that the revisionist has been implicated in case crime no. 201/2012, which is under section 395/397 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The case crime no. 204/2012, is under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of IPC and therefore, the benefit of Rule 27 aforesaid cannot be extended to the revisionist since he has been found to be aged above 16 years.
12. In view of the above legal position, no relief can be granted to the revisionist despite being aged below 17 years at the time of incident.
13. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
(Siddharth,J.)
October 29, 2025
Abhishek
