JUDGMENT : The instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2019 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2009, State v. Niyaz, by the court of Special Judge Gangster/3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (“the Act”) and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten year and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated are as follows. PW 1 Bahadur Singh Chauhan, at the relevant time, was working as Station House Officer at Police Station Manglore, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. On 25.07.2007, he orally lodged a report that the appellant along with others has formed a Gang and they would extort money by intimidation, threat and also of violence. They have terrorized the people. No person from the public is ready to give evidence against them. No body can raise voice against them. In the gang chart itself, the details of the cases pending against the appellant are given, which is as hereunder:- (i) Crime No. 124 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC (ii) Crime No. 129 of 2007 under Section 392 IPC (iii) Crime No. 139 of 2007 under Sections 392 IPC (iv) Crime No. 180 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC 4. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, chargesheet submitted against the appellant. 5. On 15.02.2018, charge under Section 2 read with 3 of the Act was framed against the appellant, to which he denied and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, PW 1 Bahadur Singh Chauhan, Circle Officer, Traffic; PW 2 Ahsan; PW 3 Furkan; PW 4 Imran; PW 5 Naushad Ali; PW 6 Shahjad and PW 7 Inspector (Retd.) Vinod Kumar Sharma. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant would submit that based on four cases, the FIR in the instant case was lodged against the appellant under the provisions of the Act, but it is argued that in Crime No. 139 of 2007, under Sections 392/411 IPC and 180 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, even chargesheet was not submitted against the appellant. He was exonerated. In Crime No. 124 of 2006 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC, the motive was personal revenge. It had nothing to do with any anti-social activity of the appellant. Therefore, it is argued that the provisions of the Act are not applicable in the instant case. Learned Amicus Curiae has referred to the statement of PW 7 Vinod Kumar Sharma, the Investigation Officer (“IO”) to argue that even the IO did not receive any written information with regard to the activities that were conducted ever by the appellant. It is argued that the appellant has wrongly been convicted and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the appellant is a Gang Leader. There is nothing personal. He has also looted a tractor along with other members of the Gang, which is basis of Crime No. 129 of 2007, in which, trial is pending. It is argued that the impugned judgment and order is in accordance with law and no interference is warranted. 9. The appellant has been convicted under Section 2 read with Section 3 of the Act. Section 2 of the Act is definition clause. “Gang” is defined under subsection (b) of Section 2 and “Gangster” is defined under sub-section (c) of Section 2, which read as under:- “2. Definitions. - In this Act,- (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, namely- (i) offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or ………………….. (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.” 10. Section 3 of the Act provides for punishment for Gangster. “Gangster” as per definition is a member or leader or organiser of a gang. Section 3 of the Act provides for punishment for Gangster. “Gangster” as per definition is a member or leader or organiser of a gang. “Gang” as per definition is 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. The “anti-social activities” has been defined under the definition of “Gang” itself. Section 2(b) (i) also defines the activities that the offences punishable under Chapter XVI, XVII or XXII IPC as anti-social activities. Undoubtedly, the offences in which the appellant was involved fall under those categories. 11. The definition of a “Gang” is in various parts. The object of the gang should be to disturb public order or gain undue advantage, temporal, pecuniary, material or otherwise. 12. “Public order” has been interpreted in the case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “public order” is an expression of wide connotation and signifies that state of tranquillity which prevails among the members of a political society as a result of the internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established. Although Section 9(1-A) refers to “securing the public safety” and “the maintenance of public order” as distinct purposes, it must be taken that “public safety” is used as a part of the wider concept of public order….”. 13. In the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 1987 All 235 , the Hon’ble Court summed up the concept of public order in para 41, which is as under:- “41. To sum up, the expression ‘Public order’ signifies the state of tranquillity. “Public safety” also embraces public health. It was because of this apparent wide import of the term ‘public order’ that the provisions of the Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act, 1953, prohibiting use of amplifiers at a public place without the permission of the authority under the Act, was upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla, AIR 1959 SC 544 . It was held that the legislation falls within the scope of Entry I. List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.” 14. It was held that the legislation falls within the scope of Entry I. List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.” 14. In fact, the validity of the Act was upheld in the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra). In the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court discussed the objects and reasons of the Act and observed on gangsterism as hereunder:- “26. Gangsterism is aimed at creating special organisations and groups to commit murder, use violence, and take people for a ransom or other demands, forcible deprivation of freedom often involving torture black-marketing etc. Gangsterism could also mean the destruction of buildings, ransacking and similar acts in a cruel manner to terrorise the people. The Court can take judicial notice of the situation previling in the State, which has made the life of citizens difficult if not a veritable hell. Threats are extended to the tenants to leave the houses to make the same available to the landlords and vice versa. Curious and novel methods have been evolved by such groups such as holding out the threat to abduct or kidnap the daughters of landlords and tenants and at other times minor sons. An atmosphere of fear and blackmail pervades the State. For dealing with gangsterism, there was no legislation. “Dadagiari”, which is the word ascribed to the activities aforesaid had acquired a definite meaning. Some people called them as Godfathers.” 15. The provisions of the Act have further come up for discussion in the case of Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P. and another, (2013) 8 SCC 368 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed various provisions of the Act, namely, the concept of personal liberty, the role of State in protecting the individuals of the Society and in para 47 of the judgment observed as hereunder:- “47. We have referred to the said observations only to highlight how the legislature in a welfare State immediately steps in for social reforms to eradicate social vices. Similarly, sometimes it is compelled to take steps to control the frenzied criminal action of some anti-social people. In the case at hand it can be stated with certitude that the legislature has felt that there should be curtailment of the activities of the gangsters and, accordingly, provided for stern delineation with such activities to establish stability in society where citizens can live in peace and enjoy a secured life. In the case at hand it can be stated with certitude that the legislature has felt that there should be curtailment of the activities of the gangsters and, accordingly, provided for stern delineation with such activities to establish stability in society where citizens can live in peace and enjoy a secured life. It has to be kept uppermost in mind that control of crime by making appropriate legislation is the most important duty of the legislature in a democratic polity, for it is necessary to scuttle serious threats to the safety of the citizens. Therefore, the legislature has, in actuality, responded to the actual feelings and requirements of the collective.” 16. A bare reading of the provisions of the Act makes it clear that it does not come into action after commission of any offences under IPC. It simply speaks of indulging in anti-social activities with the objectives and in the manner as enumerated in Section 2(b) of the Act. Involvement in such activities is sufficient to prove the offence under the Act? How to prove that? 17. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Evidence Act”) defines “Proved”. It reads as hereunder:- “Proved”. –– A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court; either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.” 18. How shall court presume about existence of any Act? Section 114 of the Evidence Act provides for it. It reads as hereunder:- “114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. –– The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.” 19. Therefore, while evaluating or appreciating the evidence, the court has also to keep in mind the common course of natural events, human conducts, etc. 20. PW 1 Bahadur Singh Chauhan is the instant case. He has proved the FIR, which was lodged by him. He has also stated that the District Magistrate has accorded sanction to prosecute the appellant. He has proved the sanction order. 20. PW 1 Bahadur Singh Chauhan is the instant case. He has proved the FIR, which was lodged by him. He has also stated that the District Magistrate has accorded sanction to prosecute the appellant. He has proved the sanction order. He has also proved the entries in General Diary, by which the case was lodged against the appellant. 21. PW 2 Ahsan has stated about an incident. According to him, on the date of incident at 10:00 P.M., in the late evening, some twelve years prior to his giving evidence before the court (he deposed on 27.4.2018), when he along with his brother Gulfam was returning to his house, the appellant and other persons waylaid and fired at them, due to which his brother Gulfam died on the spot. Some other persons were also injured. 22. PW 5 Naushad Ali is also the witness of the same incident. He has corroborated the statement of PW 2 Ahsan. PW 6 Shahjad is another witness of the same incident. He has also corroborated the statement of PW 2 Ahsan and PW 5 Naushad Ali. The witnesses have also stated that the appellant has been convicted for life imprisonment. During the course of argument, it is stated that the appeal is pending in the High Court. It is related to FIR No 124 of 2008 under Section 307 & 302 IPC. 23. PW 3 Furkan has stated that on 24.07.2007 at about 10:45 P.M., their tractor was looted by assaulting him and his father. Their tractor was subsequently recovered. He has spoken about Crime No. 139 of 2007 under Sections 392 and 411 IPC. 24. PW 4 Mohd. Imran is also witness of Crime No. 139 of 2007. But, it is admitted during the course of argument that even the appellant was not chargesheeted in Crime No. 139 of 2007 and Crime No. 180 of 2001. 25. PW 7 Vinod Kumar Sharma is the IO, who interrogated the witnesses, prepared the site plan and submitted chargesheet. 26. Admittedly, in a case of killing in Crime No. 124 of 2008, the eyewitnesses deposed against the appellant. He has been convicted by the trial court for life imprisonment and his appeal is pending. Case Crime No. 129 of 2007 under Sections 392, 411 IPC is admittedly still pending trial against the appellant. 27. 26. Admittedly, in a case of killing in Crime No. 124 of 2008, the eyewitnesses deposed against the appellant. He has been convicted by the trial court for life imprisonment and his appeal is pending. Case Crime No. 129 of 2007 under Sections 392, 411 IPC is admittedly still pending trial against the appellant. 27. PW 1 Bahadur Singh Chauhan, at the relevant time, was Station House Officer of the concerned police station. He has categorically stated that the appellants and the other members of his gang had threatened the people at gun point to extract money. No body was ready to depose against them. The main objective of the appellant was to earn money by indulging himself in the activities, which are anti-social, as they are falling under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII IPC. 28. PW 7 Vinod Kumar Sharma, the IO, has also stated that he did not receive any oral or written information from any person that he was threatened by the appellant. 29. It is a case of perception also. The definition of “Gang” speaks of the manner of the act, the objectives for which it is done and the act, which is to be done. The manner is threat, violence, intimidation, etc. The objective is to disturb public order or to gain any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage, by indulging in anti-social activities, which include offences under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII IPC. In one of such cases, the appellant has already been convicted. Another case against him is still pending trial. In two other cases, though he was named in the FIR, but was not chargesheeted. But, according to the prosecution, other members have been chargesheeted. 30. It is a different category of act. Here, the standard beyond reasonable doubt has its own appreciation. Any act, if committed, has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to record a finding of guilt. 31. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that in Crime No. 124 of 2008, the motive was personal. As stated, it was a case of indiscriminate firing, in which one person died and others injured. It was an act of disturbing public order. Crime No. 129 of 2007 is under Section 392, 411 IPC. The trial is still pending. It is definitely an act of gaining undue pecuniary advantage under Chapter XVII IPC. As stated, it was a case of indiscriminate firing, in which one person died and others injured. It was an act of disturbing public order. Crime No. 129 of 2007 is under Section 392, 411 IPC. The trial is still pending. It is definitely an act of gaining undue pecuniary advantage under Chapter XVII IPC. The Station House Officer of the concerned police station speaks that the people fears to speak against the appellant. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW 1 Bahadur Singh Chauhan. His statement finds supports with other attending factors. Therefore, having considered the entirety of evidence, under the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that, in fact, the prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 2 read with Section 3 of the Act. The court below did not commit any error in convicting the appellant. 32. The question of sentence falls for consideration. The maximum sentence under Section 3 of the Act, under which the appellant has been convicted, is upto ten years and the appellant has been convicted with ten years of imprisonment. He has already been convicted in another case. When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on 19.1.2019, his age was sixty-seven years. It means, he is seventy years of age as of now. 33. The Act has been enacted with a view to break the gang by punishing the gangsters to nip in the bud the conspitoral designs. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court of the view that interest of justice would be served if the appellant is sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment, instead of ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The fine shall remain unaltered. 34. The conviction of the appellant under Section 2 read with Section 3 of the Act is upheld. 35. The appellant is sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with the fine remaining unaltered. 36. The appeal is accordingly allowed with the modification in sentence, as indicated hereinabove. 37. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent back to the court concerned.