SR. BHARGAVA,J, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against summoning order dated 8th November, 1988, passed by Special Judge, Allahabad appointed and constituted under U. P. Gangster and Antisocial Activities Prevention Act, 1986, holding that primafacie there are sufficient material to summon the revisionists under the provisions of Section 3 of the U. P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (hereinafter called the Act) and that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the revisionists for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 451, 395 and 506, I. P. C. and summoning the revisionists for offences under Sections 2 (b) (iii)/ (C)/3 of the Act and Sections 145,451,395 and 506 I. P. C. ( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this revision are that opposite party No. 2 Ramadevi is wife of one Raj Roop Narain Lal Srivastava; an ex-civil employee of the army. Opposite party No. 2 Ramadevi filed criminal complaint against the revisionists and one Dharmendra Nath Singh in the court of the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Allahabad for offences under Sections 2 and 3 of the Act and Sections 395, 450, 451, 452,147 and 148, I. P. C. She alleged that her husband retired in 1988 and has been in and bed ridden. She and her family have been residing in House No. 95/112, Sarvodaya Nagar, Allahpur, Allahabad. Construction of this house was completed in 1978. It contains small and big rooms numbering in all twenty one. She further alleged that on 1st January, 1987 revisionist No. 1 Akhilesh Kumar Singh took a room of the said house from her on monthly rent of Rs. 140/- for fifteen days and promised to vacate the room after the expiry of that period. But after expiry of the period he went out placing his lock on the room. After two months he returned with revisionists No. 2 and 3, namely, Suresh Kumar Singh and Shailesh Kumar Singh and one Dharmendra Nath Singh. When she asked Akhilesh Kumar Singh to vacate room he insisted that his father died and he was under trouble, hence he may be permitted to live for further fifteen days. After two months he returned with revisionists No. 2 and 3, namely, Suresh Kumar Singh and Shailesh Kumar Singh and one Dharmendra Nath Singh. When she asked Akhilesh Kumar Singh to vacate room he insisted that his father died and he was under trouble, hence he may be permitted to live for further fifteen days. He asked for three further rooms for fifteen days only for his other three companions whom he described as his guests; After expiry of fifteen days from that, when Akhilesh Kumar Singh and his three companions did not vacate the rooms she insisted upon them to vacate the room. Upon this all the four of them started hurling abuses, extended threats of death and declared that they would never vacate the rooms. On 10th February, 1987 she lodged written report of this incident at police outpost, Allahpur. She submitted applications at the same police outpost on 24th March, 20th April and 10th May, 1987. But the police of the police outpost did not take any action. On 11th August, 1987 Akhilesh Kumar Singh gave in writing to the Incharge, police outpost, Allahpur that he and his co-accused would vacate the house within two months. His co-accused also promised to vacate the house within a two months. On 10th October, 1987 she asked the revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh to vacate the house but they abused her and extending threats of death they drove her away. On the same day she gave written information of this incident to Incharge, police outpost, Allahpur. On 3rd November, 1987 at about 12 in the night revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh along with fifteen or twenty unsocial elements came. They broke opened locks of eight rooms of the house, looted a sum of Rs. 1100/- belonging to her, burnt the books of her son Radha Krishan and further looted electrical goods, furniture jewellery etc. described in the list. Intimation of this incident was given to Police Control Room. She submitted information of the incident to superintendent of police, city and Incharge of police outpost George Town on the morning of 4th November, 1987. But on this police took no action. On 10th December, 1987 revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh forcibly occupied her two rooms. described in the list. Intimation of this incident was given to Police Control Room. She submitted information of the incident to superintendent of police, city and Incharge of police outpost George Town on the morning of 4th November, 1987. But on this police took no action. On 10th December, 1987 revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh forcibly occupied her two rooms. On 10th December, 1987 and 12th February, 1988, she moved applications of the incident on 3rd November, 1987 to circle officer, Colonelganj and Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad. On 13th February, 1988 she moved application to the District Magistrate, Allahabad. Revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh have constituted gang of unsocial elements. They have forcibly taken possession of the three rooms and three verandas of her house and looted cash amounting to Rs. 1100/- and goods worth Rs. 75,000/- belonging to her. She asserted that the revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh are liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences under Sections 2 (b) and 3 of the Act and Sections 395, 450,451,452, 147 and 148. She cited Chandra Prakash Srivastava, Suresh Chandra Tewari, Lala Lal Chandra and one Vidya Singh as witnesses of various incidents. She mentioned in the complaint that on 17th May, 1988 she lodged First Information of P. S. George Town against the revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh for offence under the Act but the police did not take any action. ( 3 ) ON this complaint the learned Special Judge examined Ramadevi under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and witnesses Vidya Singh and Suresh Chandra under Section 202, Cr. P. C. The learned Special Judge perused the statements and the documents filed before him. He found primafacie case and summoned the accused of the case. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved revisionists preferred this revision. It has been urged on their behalf that no offence under the Act was made out and so the Special Judge under the Act had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint or to summon the accused of the complaint It has been further urged on behalf of the revisionists that all the witnesses cited in the complaint were not examined as required by the proviso of Section 202 (2), Cr. P. C. and so the Special Judge committed material irregularity in summoning the accused of the complaint case. P. C. and so the Special Judge committed material irregularity in summoning the accused of the complaint case. Lastly it has been contended on behalf of the revisionists that on 12th September, 1988 after recording statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr. P. C. the Special Judge directed station officer, police station, George Town, Allahabad to investigate and submit police report for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Station Officer of the police station submitted report dated 29th September, 1988. In this report the Station Officer said that the revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh have been living in the house with the consent of the landlord. Dispute arose on the question of the house being vacated. Cross cases were registered. Then after investigation they were terminated by final report fie made it clear that 25 students lived in the house, After the dispute arose police attempted to get the matter settled but the revisionists were not prepared to vacate. Witnesses mentioned in the complaint are residents of localities lying under different police stations and were not prepared to appear for their statements. Only the complainant and her son appeared during investigation. The Station Officer concluded that it was a matter of dispute between the landlord and the tenants regarding vacating the house. The Station Officer prayed that necessary orders for getting the house vacated be passed. Learned Special Judge was not satisfied with this report and observed that the complaint was not fully investigated. Hence he directed the Station Officer for appearance and showing cause for disobedience. Without rejecting the police report the Special Judge could not have proceeded with enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and summon the revisionists. At any rate, the police report did not disclose any offence against the revisionists. ( 5 ) BEFORE proceeding further it may be noted that the Special Judge appointed or constituted under the Act has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Act over offence or offences punishable under any provision of the Act or any Rule made thereunder. Section 3 (1) of the Act lays down that while trying any offence punishable under the Act Special Judge may also try any other offence with which the accused may, under any other law for the time being in force, be charged at the same trial. Section 3 (1) of the Act lays down that while trying any offence punishable under the Act Special Judge may also try any other offence with which the accused may, under any other law for the time being in force, be charged at the same trial. Thus if the complaint, evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C and documents produced before the Special Judge make out any offence under the Act against the revisionists the Special Judge has jurisdiction for trying the revisionists for offences under Sections 147,451, 395 and 506, I. P. C. ( 6 ) THE real question which requires determination for adjudicating upon the jurisdiction of the special Judge is whether the complaint, evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. and other documents make out an offence under the Act against the revisionists. Section 3 (1) of the Act is thy penal clause rendering a gangster punishable. Thus the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) is of a gangster. Section 2 (c) defines gangster. (c ). Gangster 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. Section 2 (b) broadly defines gang as under. (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 undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities namely. Clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 2 (b) of the Act specifically mention acts as anti-social activities Clause (Hi) of Section 2 (b) of the Act runs as under: (iii ). Occupying or taking possession of immovable property otherwise than in accordance with law, or setting-up false claims for title or possession of immovable property whether in himself or any other person. Clause (xi) of Section 2 (b) runs as under: (xi) Creating panic, alarm or terror in public. It is manifest in the definition of the gangster that there must be a group of persons having common activities. Group of persons may not be well defined. Clause (xi) of Section 2 (b) runs as under: (xi) Creating panic, alarm or terror in public. It is manifest in the definition of the gangster that there must be a group of persons having common activities. Group of persons may not be well defined. But for offence under the Act the persons forming the gang may act singly or collectively. Their means may be violent, or simply threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or any other. The group or the gang should have the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself 01 any other person. ( 7 ) WHAT appears in this case is that there were proceedings under Section 482, Cr. P. C. between the parties. Those proceedings were initiated by the revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh. They were decided by judgment dated 30th November, 1989. (Annexure - 61 of Affidavit of revisionist Akhilesh Kumar Singh filed in the Court on 8-2-1990 ). In this judgment it was said that the petitioners (who are now the revisionists) are students. The court asked the parties and their counsel to sort out their differences outside the court. Then the court observed: Although in a matter where some person had been summoned as an accused, this procedure was rather unconventional, yet for the larger interest of the career of these young boys who claim themselves to be the students, I adopted this procedure as the present case before me was on an application made under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Where I considered that inherent powers of this Court could be exercised to bring rapprochement between the two parties. However, despite repeated assertions by the petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3, that they had vacated the rooms and were willing to hand over their keys to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 in the court in my presence, the stand taken by the respondent No. 3 was that no rapprochement was possible unless the petitioners had got the entire accommodation vacated by other persons whom they had let in various other rooms of the Building and from whom they were realising rent. Then the Court observed in the judgment that Dharmendra Nath Singh already left Allahabad and that revision was also pending. Then the Court observed in the judgment that Dharmendra Nath Singh already left Allahabad and that revision was also pending. The Court then said: A persual of the complainant which is Annexure I to this petition, on its facts being accepted to be true, would necessarily show that ingredients of the offence are very much in the complaint which may require petitioners to be tried by the Special Court under the provisions of U. P. Gangsters Act. Yet the possibility of the provisions of the Act being misused cannot be ruled out, as there appear to be no other criminal history in respect of the petitioners indicating that they are members of a gang as defined under the Gangsters Act. In any case, these are the aspects which need a detailed investigation, and since the petitioners can agitate this matter before the Court where a revision against a summoning order can be filed it does not appear desirable on my part to express my final opinion in this matter at this stage. It was agreed between parties to the petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. That Dharmendra Nath Singh left Allahabad to prosecute his studies in Maharashtra. Hence proceedings against him pending before the Special Judge in pursuance of the impugned summoning order was quashed. Then the petition was finally disposed of. ( 8 ) IT was vehemently argued on behalf of the in contesting opposite party that the court has already held that the complaint makes out offence under the Act against the revisionists. I have noted the findings and observations in the judgment in proceedings tinder Section 482, Cr. P. C.- extensively to which show that the Court did not decide the question whether the complaint makes out offence under the Act finally but left the question to be decided in revision. ( 9 ) NO doubt clause (iii) of Section 2 (b) on the face of it shows a civil wrong but if it is opposed or hostile to society or if it amounts to Dadagiri creating panic, alar or terror in public it is an antisocial Activity; If it is committed by a gang that is group of persons, individually or collectively, it is an offence punishable under Section 3 (i) of the Act. It is no doubt true that in the complaint previous history of the revisionists is not given nor is there any evidence that prior to 1st January, 1987 the revisionists formed a group of persons or indulged in any criminal activity collectively or individually. But according to the story given in the complaint on 1st January, 1987 one of the revisionists acted individually and innocently took a room or rent from a lady having bed ridden husband. After fifteen days, that is, the period on the expiry of which he should have vacated the room, he disappeared for a couple of months. Then he brought three other persons with him and commanded pity by saying that his father died and he was under trouble and wanted his guests to be accommodated. Thus the revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh after gaining the confidence of the lady occupied four rooms by means otherwise with object of gaining undue temporal material or other advantage for themselves. They occupied the room for limited period but when they were required to, vacate according 10 their promise they started intimidation and threats. They then brought in some unsocial elements and forcibly occupied eleven other rooms in two stages. In this process, according to the complaint story, they looted cash and other goods. They extended threats and created panic and terror. It was urged on behalf of the revisionists that for antisocial activities there should not be any isolated incident or isolated trespass. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the revisionists and Dharmendra Nath Singh unlawfully took possession over some rooms in a building that would not amount to an anti-social activity. It would amount to an act of trespass punishable under the I. P. C. for being activities hostile to the public or amounting to Dadagiri activities should be in continuity for sometime. It has been conceded that an isolated incident cannot amount to anti-social activity or an activity hositle to the society. The learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance on the Full Bench case of Ashok Dixit v. State of U. P. and argued that for an act or omission punishable under the Act there should be something more than offences punishable under I. P. C. or other laws. There can be no dispute with this contention of the learned counsel of the revisionists. There can be no dispute with this contention of the learned counsel of the revisionists. But it is not necessary that acts or omissions should be committed in community or for long time in different places. If acts or omissions have been committed even in respect different apartments or units or parts of the same building continuously showing common mind resulting into material or pecuniary or temporal gain to group of persons the acts or omissions would fall under the Act. ( 10 ) IN the instant case there is police report that as many as 25 students are now in the building. The earlier judgment of the court shows that the contention of the complainant has been that the revisionists have been collecting rent from the students in occupation. If all the material placed before this Court is considered it appears to be a case of house grabbing in a continuous process by a group of persons, some members of which acted at initial stage individually and then collectively in unauthorised occupation. I hold that prima facie offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act is made out from the complaint itself. ( 11 ) THEN the scheme of the Act, regarding the procedure prescribed before the sessions Judge, may be examined, Section 7 (2) confess jurisdiction upon the Special Judge with respect to all the cases falling under the Act pending before any court on the creation of the court of Special Judge. It lays down that all such cases should stand transferred to the Special Judge Section 10 (1) authorises the Special Judge to take cognizance of any offence Viable by it, when the accused have committed to it for trial upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence or upon a police report of such facts. Section 10 (2) empowers the Special Judge to try all the cases punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years in a summary way. Section 10 (4) is more important and may be noted specifically as under: 10 (4) Subject to the other provisions of this Act a Special Court for the purpose of trial of any offence, have all the powers of a Court of Session and shall follows the procedure prescribed in the Code for the trial of warrant cases by the Magistrate. This sub-section shows that Special Judge under the Act is a combination of a Magistrate and a Court of Session. It has to be noted that Section 8 (1) empowers the special Judge to try any other offence with the offence punishable under the Act. If any other offence or the offence under the Act requires a punishment which a Magistrate is not empowered to award, the special Judge is a court of Sessions authorised to award that punishment. But in the trial he has to follow the procedure prescribed for warrant cases prescribed for Magistrate. Then the Act is silent It was in this context Honble S. I. Jafri, J, held in the case of revisionist Akhilesh Singh himself in his bail Application2 that it cannot be held that the Act is a complete legislation. It only defines the offence and provides penalties. It also provides certain provisions pertaining to special procedure regarding cognizance, remand, trial etc. But leaves wide areas untouched. Therefore, where the Act does not contain express provisions on a particular subject, the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply, without which the Special Judge would not be able to proceed with the trial till its conclusion. ( 12 ) THE general principle is that a provision of a Special Act overrides the provisions of a General Act. This principle is enshrined in Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-Section (1) lays down that all offences under the Indian Penal Code should be investigated, enquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Code. But sub-section (2) lays down that all offences under any other law should be investigated, enquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regularising the manner or place of investigating, enquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences, Section 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 specifically lays down that nothing in the Code, should, in the absence of a provision to the contrary, affected any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. ( 13 ) OFFENCE under the Act is punishable up to the extent of rigorous imprisonment for ten years. ( 13 ) OFFENCE under the Act is punishable up to the extent of rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Offence under Section 395, I. P. C. is triable by a court of Session. In part II classification of offences against other laws in the First Schedule of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 all offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than seven years under other laws have been made triable by Court of Session. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists was. that in enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. the Special Judge having the powers of a Magistrate was bound to comply with the mandatory provisions of the proviso of Section 202 (2), Cr. P. C. and record statements of all the witnesses before summoning the accused. To my opinion since Section 10 ( 4) of the Act requires the Special Judge to follow the procedure prescribed in the Code for the trial of the warrant cases by the Magistrate. No case triable by the Special Judge under the Act remains triable by Court of Sessions. Hence he is not bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the provision of Section 202 (2 ). On behalf of the complainant opposite party reliance was placed on the cases of Jitendra Pratap Singh v. State of U. P. and Ram Prakash and Ors. v. Banwari Lal and Ors. These cases relate to provisions of U. P. Dacoity Affected Ordinance and Act which are similar to the provisions of the Gangster Act. They support the, principle that the special override the general. Once in Section 10 (4) of the Gangsters Act there is a special provision for the Special Judge to try the cases before him according-to the rocedure prescribed for warrant cases before the Magistrate, contention that the case being triable by Court of Sessions the Special Judge was bound to follow the procedure prescribed in the proviso of Section 202 (2) pales but. I conclude that omission to record statements of some witnesses under Section 202, Cr. P. C. is not illegal and not fatal to the summoning order. It is true that the police investigation resulted into a report of dispute of civil nature between the landlord and the tenants. The police cannot be expected to interpret law. I conclude that omission to record statements of some witnesses under Section 202, Cr. P. C. is not illegal and not fatal to the summoning order. It is true that the police investigation resulted into a report of dispute of civil nature between the landlord and the tenants. The police cannot be expected to interpret law. As seen above, clause (iii) of Section 2 (b) of the Act makes a civil wrong an offence punishable under the Act. Hence a police officer of the rank or Inspector or Sub Inspector would have made a mistake in saying that there is civil dispute between the landlord and the tenants. But he could not be binding upon the Special Judge, when he was not satisfied with the police report he could certainly embark upon enquiry and summon the revisionists according to law. In result, this revision has no force and is hereby dismissed. .