Allahabad High Court
Rinku Alias Hukku vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)AWC1446, 2000CRILJ2834, 2000 CRI. L. J. 2834, 2000 A I H C 3161, 2000 ALL. L. J. 1035, 2000 (4) RECCRIR 435, 2000 (27) ALLCRIR 826, 2000 (2) ALL WC 1446, (2000) 2 ALL WC 1446, (2000) 27 ALLCRIR 826, (2000) 4 RECCRIR 435
Author: I. M. Quddusi
Bench: I. M. Quddusi, Kamal Kishore
JUDGMENT I. M. Quddusi, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the first information report, which was registered as Case Crime No. 471 of 1999 under Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act. 1986, Police Station Krishna Nagar, district Lucknow.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.
3. The brief facts of the case are that a Case Crime No. 434 of 1999, under Sections 147, 164, 201. 302, I.P.C. Police Station Krishna Nagar, district Lucknow was registered against the petitioner Rinku alias Hakku, on the basis of which another Case Crime No. 471 of 1999, under Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act. 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") was registered at the same police station. No other case has been indicated in this F.I.R. except the above one against the petitioner. A gang chart was also annexed with the F.I.R. which also shows that there was only one case against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner cannot be deemed to be a gangster within the meaning of the Act, as there is no other case against the petitioner except one.
4. The question for determination in this case is whether a person against whom one offence or single act of anti-social activity has been alleged can be termed as a gangster within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act. In this regard, first of all the definition of Gang as well as Gangster given in the Act is liable to be perused which is quoted below :
"Section 2 (b) Gang means a group of persons, who acting either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise- with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any under temporal pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in antisocial activities......
Section 2 (c) Gangsters means a member or leader or organiser of a gang and includes any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b), whether before or after the commission of such activities or harbours any person who has indulged in such activities."
5. Learned A.G.A. has urged that in the definition of "Gang", the words 'group of persons' who either acting singly or 'collectively' have been used, which means that the group of persons may act collectively or any of the member of the group may also act singly with the object of disturbing public order indulging in activities mentioned in Section 2 (b) of the Act who can be termed as "Gangster". No doubt the member of a gang acting either singly or collectively may be termed as a member of the Gang and comes within the definition of the Gang, provided in Section 2 (b) of the Act, but here the question is whether the word 'activities' given in the Act included single activity also or not.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a case law laid down by this Court in State of U. P. v. Phool Mian and others. 1999 Cr LJ 87, in which the learned single Judge of this Court has held that the definition of gangster in Section 2 (c) of the Act uses the word 'activities'. The use of plural activities clearly indicates that a single act of anti-social activity cannot term a person into a gangster. There have to be atleast two acts and the commission of those acts by the accused has to be established beyond reasonable doubt according to the Rules of Evidence as applicable to the criminal trials.
7. The question for consideration before us is that whether the learned single Judge has laid down the correct law that there have to be atleast two acts of anti social activities referred to in Section 2 (b) and whether the single act of anti-social activity cannot term a person into a gangster and whether 'activities' does not include 'single activity'.
8. Before proceeding further, we have to keep in mind the provisions of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, which is reproduced below :
"Gender and number.--In ail U. P. Acts unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context-
(1) word importing the masculine gender, shall be taken to include females : and (2) words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice uersa."
9. Since in Section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act. the words 'vice-versa' have been used. it would mean that the words in the plural shall include the singular.
10. In State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, Ex-constable. AIR 1992 SC 2188. the Supreme Court has held as under :
"Under General Clauses Act. singular includes plural, act includes acts. The contention that there must be plurality of acts of mis-conduct to award dismissal is fastidious. The word 'acts' would include singular 'act' as well, it is not repetition of the acts complained of but it is quality insidious effect and gravity of situation that ensues from the offending 'act'."
11. In Sital Chandra v. Babu Ram, AIR 1967 All 150, this Court has held that singular expression 'complaint' under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, can be constituted as complaints and there can be more than one person in a single complaint.
12. In view of the above, under Section 13 of the If. P. General Clauses Act, the activities denotes activity as well, as the said provisions are in pari materia of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. As such a single act of anti-social activity can come within the definition of gangster.
13. In view of the above, with profound respect, we are unable to accept the view taken by the learned single Judge in State of V. P. v. Phool Mian and others (supra).
14. In clause I of Article 367 of the Constitution of India also, it is provided that unless context otherwise requires, the General Clauses Act. 1897, shall, subject to any adaptation and modification that may be made therein under Article 372, apply for the interpretation of the Constitution as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of the Legislature of the Dominion of India. Hence in the matter of the present Act there is no scope of any other interpretation.
15. In the F.I.R. in question which has been registered as Crime No. 471 of 1999. under Section 2/3 of the U. P. Gangster and Anti-social Activities Prevention Act, 1986. only one case has been shown in the gang chart against the petitioner Rinku olias Hakku, which is Case Crime No. 434 of 1999. under Section 147. 164. 201. 302. I.P.C. Police Station Krishna Nagar. District Lucknow.
16. The gang chart shows that there are other nine persons also who were indulged in the commission of the said crime. Hence it cannot be said that 'single act' of anti-social activity shown against the petitioner would not come within the scope of the Act and the petitioner cannot be termed as gangster, as defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act.
17. Hence, in our view, it is not a fit case for quashing of the F.I.R. The writ petition is mis-conceived, and is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly.
18. There is no orders as to costs.