JUDGMENT : B. Amit Sthalekar, J. 1.Heard Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court on behalf of the applicant and Sri Tarkeshwar Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Raj Kumar alias Chunmun from jail against the judgment of the trial court dated 27.01.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act), Bulandshahar in S.T. No.691/2000, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, P.S. Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar for five years R.I. and fine of Rs. 8,000/- with default stipulation. 3. The Office through its report dated 05.05.2017 has informed, on the basis of information received from the C.J.M. Bulandshahar that the accused Raj Kumar alias Chunmun has been released from jail on 06.04.2011 after completing the period of sentence. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged by V.K. Bharadwaj, Incharge Inspector, Police Station-Sikandarabad, District Bulandhshar against the appellant under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1986) on 05.11.2000 stating that the appellant was involved in different incidents of criminal offences in collusion with others forming a Gang and as a result of which earning illegal wealth. The following cases are pending against him: 1. Case Crime No.328/89, under Section 392, 411, Police Station Sikandarabad. 2. Case Crime No.15/91, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sikandarabad. 3. Case Crime No.236/98, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Sikandarabad. 4. Case Crime No.130/99, under Section 393, 307, Police Station Sikandarabad. 5. It was also alleged that because of his involvement in all such cases the witnesses were in fear and were not coming forward to give evidences against him. Accordingly a case was registered against the appellant and a charge-sheet was filed under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986 read with offences under Chapter 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. During trial the prosecution has examined Constable, Krishna Kumar, U.P. Police, Bulandshahar as P.W.1, who has stated that on 20.06.1998 a report was submitted by Naresh Singh son of Rajveer Singh, R/O P.S., Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar on the basis of which Case Crime No.236/98, under Section 302 IPC was lodged against Vikram and Sukhpal along-with two other persons. 6. During trial the prosecution has examined Constable, Krishna Kumar, U.P. Police, Bulandshahar as P.W.1, who has stated that on 20.06.1998 a report was submitted by Naresh Singh son of Rajveer Singh, R/O P.S., Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar on the basis of which Case Crime No.236/98, under Section 302 IPC was lodged against Vikram and Sukhpal along-with two other persons. On cross-examination he has stated that he is not aware whether the appellant Raj Kumar was sent to jail and whether any charge-sheet has been filed against him. 7. Statement of P.W.2, Sub Inspector, P.K. Bhardwaj, who has also stated that the appellant was involved in several criminal cases already referred to here-in-above and due to fear the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against him. The gang chart was also filed bearing the signature of the then District Magistrate, Smt. Dimpal Verma, as exhibit 2. 8. Thereafter the statement of P.W.3, Naresh son of Rajveer Singh was recorded, who has stated that on 20.06.1998 he was going on cycle with his father and when he reached near Sikandarabad they were attacked by unknown persons which resulted in the death of his father. The persons who were witnesses of the incident their names were disclosed as Dalveer Singh and Mahendra Singh, who later on identified accused Devendra and Rajkumar alias Chunmun (appellant herein). This witness later on turned hostile and stated that he has given his statement on the dictate of the police. 9. Head Constable, Sri Niwas Sharma was examined as P.W.4. He has identified the charge-sheet which has been filed in Case Crime No.294/2001 and has also proved the signature of Sub Inspector, D.P. Singh, who has submitted the charge sheet. He has also proved the signature of the then District Magistrate, Dimpal Verma, who has submitted the gang chart against the appellant. He also stated that Sri D.P. Singh, Sub Inspector did not hold any investigation in his presence in the present case. 10. P.W.5 is Jitendra Kumar, who has stated that on 12.01.1991 he was going with his father on Cycle to the doctor and when he reached on Khandaja near Siradhan Road, Sikandarabad, accused Rajkumar alias Chunmun along-with Sundar Pal alias Kallia came there from behind on a Motorcycle and hit his cycle as a result of which they fell on the ground. As soon as his father fell on the ground the accused Raj Kumar alias Chunmun instigated the other accused persons to kill him. The unidentified person fired at his father which missed him but the appellant and Sundar Pal thereafter assaulted his father with knife as a result of which he died on the spot. Thereafter when one unknown person exhorted to kill Jitendra Kumar he ran towards the fields to save himself. Santram, Ratan Pal and Vijay Pal who were coming from Sikandarabad saw the entire incident and saved him from being killed. The accused and others made good their escape on motorcycle. This witness has clearly stated that Raj Kumar alias Chunmun is an accused and previously there are also cases pending against him. He also stated that he was trying to encroach the land of the Gaon Sabha which was opposed by Jitendra's father who was Gram Pradhan at that time and it is for this reason that Raj Kumar bore a grudge against his father and assaulted him on that day resulting in his death. 11. The Court below has also recorded a finding that Case Crime No.328 of 1989, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, P.S. Sikandarabad is still pending. 12. In Case Crime No.15/91, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Sikandarabad the appellant has been convicted. 13. Case Crime No.236/98, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Sikandarabad is still pending. 14. In Case Crime No.130, under Sections 307 and 393 IPC, P.S. Sikandarabad the appellant has been acquitted. 15. In Case Crime No.144/99, under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Sikandarabad the appellant has been acquitted. 16. In Case Crime No.175/2000 under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Sikandarabad the appellant has been acquitted. 17. In Case Crime No.176/2000, under section 25 of the Arms Act, P.S. Sikandarabad the appellant has been acquitted. 18. On the basis of the evidence on record the trial court held the appellant guilty of the charges under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986 and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to 5 years RI and imposed a penalty of Rs. 8000/- and in default of payment of fine further sentence of three months simple imprisonment. 19. Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that no case under the Act, 1986 is made out against the appellant and the appellant does not fall within the definition of Gangster as defined in the Act, 1986. 8000/- and in default of payment of fine further sentence of three months simple imprisonment. 19. Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that no case under the Act, 1986 is made out against the appellant and the appellant does not fall within the definition of Gangster as defined in the Act, 1986. Reference was made to Section 2 (b) and Section 2 (c) of the Act, 1986. The submission is that the Act, 1986 will apply to a person who must be a member or leader or organizer of a gang and gang itself means group of persons, who are 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. The submission of the learned counsel is that none of the provisions of Section 2 (b) or Section 2(c) of the Act, 1986 apply in the case of the appellant. 20. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that P.W.3 Naresh who was the complainant of Case Crime No. 236/1998, under Section 302 IPC, in which his father was murdered has turned hostile and therefore, his testimony is of no value where he says that the name of the appellant was disclosed to him by other witnesses, namely, Dalveer Singh and Mahendra Singh, who have recognized the two accused Devendra and Raj Kumar alias Chunmum (appellant herein). 21. Gang has been defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, 1986 which reads as under: "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 undue temporal pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person, indulge in antisocial activities." 22. Gangster has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, 1986 which reads as under: "2. (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;" 23. (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;" 23. From a reading of Section 2 (b) of the Act, 1986 it is clear that the ingredients of the Act require that there must be a group of person 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. 24. In the present case, the evidence on record clearly shows that the appellant was acting in collusion with Sundar Pal and one other unidentified person when he committed murder of the father of Jitendra Kumar, P.W.5 with a knife resulting in his instantaneous death. There was one other unidentified person who is stated to have been on the same motorcycle with the appellant and who had initially fired at Jitendra's father on the instigation of the appellant but the shot missed him. The other Case Crime No. 236/1998 also under Section 302 IPC is still pending against the appellant in which also the appellant is stated to have committed the murder of Rajveer Singh, father of P.W.3, Naresh in collusion with the other persons. The gang chart clearly shows the various cases pending against the appellant, therefore from the material on record, it cannot be said that the appellant did not belong to a gang or was not acting in furtherance of the interest of the gang. 25. A full Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and Another reported in AIR 1987 All 235 has while interpreting the provisions of Section 2 (b) of the Act, 1986 held that for booking a person under the provisions of the Act, 1986 the authorities has to be prima facie satisfied that there is a reasonable and proximate connection between the occurrence and the activity of the person sought to be apprehended. Paragraph 73 of the Full Bench Judgment reads as under: "73. In this behalf, provisions of the Act themselves provide intrinsic guidelines. Paragraph 73 of the Full Bench Judgment reads as under: "73. In this behalf, provisions of the Act themselves provide intrinsic guidelines. If we advert to Section 2(b) of the Act. which defines the term 'gangster' we would find significant words. They are "acting", 'singly or collectively', 'violence or show of violence', 'intimidation', 'coercion', or unlawful means'. Thus, for booking a person under the provisions of the Act the authorities have to be prima facie satisfied that a person has acted. The authority has to be satisfied that there is a reasonable and proximate connection between the occurrence and the activity of the person sought to be apprehended and that such activities were to achieve undue temporal, physical, economic or other advantage. There need not be any overt or positive act of the person intended to be apprehended at the place. It is enough to prove active complicity which has a bearing on the crime." 26. Therefore, on a conspectus of facts and the material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of the trial court. The conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the trial court is affirmed. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 27. It is noted that the appellant has already completed his term of sentence and has also been released on 6.4.2011. 28. Before concluding this court must put on record its appreciation of the efforts put in by Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae in providing valuable assistance to the Court. It is therefore directed that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- be paid to Ms. Nishi Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae towards fees.