Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1492 (ALL)

Manoj Maurya v. State of U. P.

2023-05-31

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Nand Prabha Shukla, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 27.12.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No. 530 of 2022 under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station-Sarnath, District- Varuna Commissionerate, Varanasi. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is total non-compliance of Rule 10(i) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021. 4. Relying upon the said provision, it is stated that the certified copy of charge-sheet and the recovery memo of the base case was not attached with the Gang chart. This violation of Rule 10 vitiates the impugned FIR which is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 5. It is next submitted that the petitioner was not named in the base case. The charge-sheet in the base case, which is the basis of the impugned FIR, has not been filed in the Court. The petitioner had applied in a question- answer form to obtain the date on which the charge-sheet was filed in Court. However, the questionnaire was returned without any reply. The other questionnaire appended to the writ petition is one which contains a reply as to whether cognizance has been taken by the Court in base case i.e., Crime No. 366 of 2022 under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Sarnath, Varanasi on the charge-sheet dated 14.03.2023. The answer to this question is "No". 6. It is, therefore, contended that till such time cognizance on the basis of the charge-sheet in base case had been taken, the same could not be made the basis for invocation of proceedings under the Gangsters Act. 7. Per contra, the contention of learned AGA is that the filing of the charge-sheet in Court or the Court taking cognizance thereof is not the requirement under the provisions of the Gangsters Act or Rules framed thereunder. He has submitted that word certified copy can be also mean a self certified copy, certified by the person who has prepared the document or the person who is custodian of the same. In this context, it is worth referring to the provision of Rule 60 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Rules, 2021 adding strength to the said requirement. He has submitted that word certified copy can be also mean a self certified copy, certified by the person who has prepared the document or the person who is custodian of the same. In this context, it is worth referring to the provision of Rule 60 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Rules, 2021 adding strength to the said requirement. Rule 60: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Act, in the trial of cases under this Act the criminal cases included in the gang-chart and the FIRs mentioned in the list can proved by the Officer certifying the certified copy of the charge-sheet. No original form shall be required for the same and the facts contained in the Forms so proved shall be deemed to be proved unless it is rebutted by any evidence to the contrary." 8. From bare perusal of the Gang Chart, it is obvious that the Dossier of relevant records was forwarded for approval by the concerned Police Officer which shows it was self-certified. 9. In support of this contention he has also placed reliance upon the Section 76 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows:- "76. Certified copies of public documents.—Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies." 10. He has lastly submitted that non-attachment of some of the documents mentioned in Rule 10 is a mere irregularity and not a fatal error. 11. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge-sheet is not a public document and therefore, the submission made on behalf of the State is without substance. 12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. 11. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge-sheet is not a public document and therefore, the submission made on behalf of the State is without substance. 12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. In the context of the arguments raised, it is appropriate to refer to Rule 5(3)(c) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 which reads as follows: 5(3)(c):-"The gang-chart shall not mention those cases in which acquittal has been granted by the Special Court or in which the final report has been filed after the investigation. However, the gang-chart shall not be approved without the completion of investigation of the base case." (Underlining for emphasis) 14. Thus, General Rules for the preparation of Gang chart clearly provide that the Gang Chart shall not be approved without completion of the investigation of the base case. Investigation is complete once a charge-sheet has been prepared. 15. In view of the aforesaid Rule, the contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is not sustainable. There is no requirement of law for the charge-sheet to be filed in Court before preparation of the gang chart. As the investigation in the base case was over/complete and the charge-sheet was ready on 14.03.2023, therefore, there was no infirmity in the preparation of gang chart. 16. Moreover, from a bare perusal of the Gang Chart, it is obvious that the dossier of relevant records, including the charge-sheet in the base case(s) bearing the sign and seal was forwarded by the concerned police officer, which means that it was self certified. It, therefore, complied with the requirement of law in Rule 10(2) of the Rules, which talks of a certified copy of the charge-sheet. 17. The above view is further fortified by a bare reading of Rule 60 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021, extracted earlier. Moreover, it is relevant to note that this provision starts with a non obstantae clause namely "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Act....." 18. The submission that a charge-sheet is not a public document is of no consequence as a self certified copy of the charge sheet will satisfy the requirement of Rule 10 of the Rules, for the reasons given in the earlier part of this judgment. The submission that a charge-sheet is not a public document is of no consequence as a self certified copy of the charge sheet will satisfy the requirement of Rule 10 of the Rules, for the reasons given in the earlier part of this judgment. This is so, also because the definition of a "Certified Copy" as per the Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, 2012 is "a copy of a document signed & certified as a true copy by the officer to whose custody the original is entrusted." Similarly, Black's Law Dictionary Eight Edition (South Asian Edition), defines a 'certified copy' as a duplicate of an original, usually an official document, certified as an exact reproduction, usually by the officer responsible for issuing or keeping the original. 19. Thus, for the reasons as noted above and since the allegations in the FIR constitute the ingredients of a cognizable offence, the writ petition is dismissed.