Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1745 (ALL)

Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan v. State Of Up

2024-07-26

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) 1. As a common question is involved in all the above five writ petitions, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgement. 2. Basic issue in all the above writ petitions is preparation of gang chart in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2021”). In all the above writ petitions first information reports, under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “Gangsters Act”), have been challenged on the ground that while preparing the gang charts of the FIRs in question, the competent authorities have not applied their minds and prepared gang charts in violation of the Rules, 2021 as well as several directions issued by this Court in the cases of Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2024 (1) ADJ 231 (DB) as well as other judgements. 3. The following contentions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. 9930 of 2024:- (i) That while recommending and approving the gang chart of the impugned FIR, the competent authorities instead of recording their satisfaction simply signed pre-typed satisfaction which is against the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanni Mishra (supra). (ii) That from perusal of the gang chart, it is clear that while signing the pretyped satisfaction for approval, the District Magistrate has not mentioned the date of his signature. This fact clearly shows that there was no joint meeting of District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police as required by the Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules, 2021. (iii) That the impugned F.I.R. was registered under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act without describing the corresponding provision of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, mentioning the anti social activities on the basis of which the petitioner was termed as gangster. Therefore, the F.I.R. itself is in violation of directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asim @ Hassim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; 2024 (1) ADJ 125 (DB). 4. The following contentions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. Therefore, the F.I.R. itself is in violation of directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asim @ Hassim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; 2024 (1) ADJ 125 (DB). 4. The following contentions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 10379 of 2024 and 10852 of 2024:- (i) That while preparing the gang chart of the impugned F.I.R., the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah did not record any satisfaction as required by Rule 16(2) of the Rules, 2021, but he simply mentioned the word “recommended”. While approving the gang chart, the District Magistrate has not recorded satisfaction as required by Section 16(3) of the Rules, 2021 which prescribes that before approving the gang chart, the District Magistrate should also mention that apart from the gang chart he has perused the attached forms/evidences enclosed with the gang chart but he simply mentioned that he has perused the gang chart and report annexed with the gang chart, though there was no report of the Senior Superintendent of Police with the gang chart. Therefore, while approving the gang chart there is complete non application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate, Etawah. (ii) That before approving the gang charts, the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police have not conducted due discussion in a joint meeting as required by the Rule 5(3) of the Rules, 2021. 5. The following contentions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10916 of 2024:- (i) That while approving the gang chart no date was mentioned by the Nodal Officer while signing his satisfaction on the gang chart. (ii) From the perusal of the gang chart, it is clear that recommendation of the Superintendent of Police on the gang chart was made on 24.4.2024 but the approval was granted by the District Magistrate on 10.5.2024. Both the aforesaid dates show that there was no joint meeting between the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate and the gang chart has been approved without application of mind as required by Rule 17 of the Rules, 2021. 6. The following contentions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. Both the aforesaid dates show that there was no joint meeting between the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate and the gang chart has been approved without application of mind as required by Rule 17 of the Rules, 2021. 6. The following contentions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. 10968 of 2024:- (i) That while recommending and approving the gang chart of the impugned F.I.R. the competent authorities, instead of recording their satisfaction, simply signed pre-typed satisfaction which is against the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanni Mishra (supra). (ii) That before approving the gang chart the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police have not conducted due discussion in a joint meeting as required by the Rule 5(3) of the Rules, 2021. 7. Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State-respondents has submitted that there is no requirement to conduct joint meeting before approval of the gang chart. Learned A.G.A. submitted that though there is a technical fault in approving the gang chart on the part of the competent authorities, that cannot be a ground to quash the impugned F.I.R. under the Gangsters Act. It is also submitted that in pursuance of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court, Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh has also issued circular dated 21.4.2024 to all the District Magistrates as well as Superintendents of Police for strictly following the Rules, 2021 in the light of the guidelines issued by this Court while preparing the gang chart under the Gangsters Act. It is further submitted that the Director General of Police had also issued circular dated 19.4.2024 to all the Senior Superintendents of Police/Superintendents of Police/Commissioners of Police to strictly follow the guidelines, issued by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Sanni Mishra (supra) as well as in other judgements of this Hon’ble Court so as to prepare the gang chart in accordance with the Rules, 2021. However, some of the District Magistrates and District Police Chiefs, mistakenly, could not take into consideration those guidelines and because of that reason mistakes were committed while preparing and approving the gang charts under the Gangsters Act. 8. However, some of the District Magistrates and District Police Chiefs, mistakenly, could not take into consideration those guidelines and because of that reason mistakes were committed while preparing and approving the gang charts under the Gangsters Act. 8. Before proceeding on the factual aspect as well as legal question, involved herein, it would be appropriate to discuss the basic object of the Gangsters Act. The Gangsters Act was enacted to deal with those criminals who commit crime by forming a gang or who assist or abet illegal activities of a gang which are mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. The Gangsters Act can be invoked only against the persons who are termed as gangsters as per Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act. Therefore, the Gangsters Act can be imposed only on those persons who are members of any gang and commit offence mentioned in Section 2(b)(i) to 2(b)(xxv) of the Gangsters Act or who assist such persons in any manner. Definition of the word ‘gang’ has been given in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, providing group of persons either acting singly or collectively with the object of disturbing public order or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary or material advantage for himself of any other person through violence, or threat, or intimidation, or coercion, or other similar activities by indulging in illegal activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. Section 2(b), defining the word ‘gang’ is quoted 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 anti-social activities”. 9. From the perusal of the definition of the word ‘gang’, it appears that if two or more persons group together for committing illegal activities, as mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act itself, then that group will be considered as a gang. But in the Gangsters Act, it was nowhere mentioned whether the activity of the member of a group should be one or more than one to attract the liability under the Gangsters Act as mentioned in the Maharastra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015. But in the Gangsters Act, it was nowhere mentioned whether the activity of the member of a group should be one or more than one to attract the liability under the Gangsters Act as mentioned in the Maharastra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015. As per the Maharastra Control of Organized Crime Act as well as the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, to attract the liability there must be a continuing unlawful activity which requires more than one charge sheet. However, in the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, it is nowhere mentioned that to attract the liability under the Gangsters Act there must be continuing unlawful activity which requires more than one charge sheet for the offences. For ready reference, Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e) of the Maharastra Control of Organized Crime Act as well as Sections 2(1)(c) and 2(1)(e) of the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act are quoted as under:- “Maharastra Control of Organized Crime Act 2(1)(d). “continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence. 2(1)(e). “organised crime“ means any continuing unlawful activity by an individual, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence or threat of violence or intimidation or coercion, or other unlawful means, with the objective of gaining pecuniary benefits, or gaining undue economic or other advantage for himself or any other person or promoting insurgency. Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act 2(1)(c). Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act 2(1)(c). "continuing unlawful activity" means an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cogntzable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of three years or more,'-- undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and that court has taken cognizance of such offence. 2(1)(e). "organised crime" means continuing unlawful activity and terrorist act including extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offences, cyber crimes having severe consequences, prostitution or ransom by an individual, singly or jointly, either as syndicate, by use of violence or at of violence or intimidation or coercion or other means.” 10. This issue was also considered by the Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 514. While considering the issue whether the provision of the Gangsters Act can be invoked if the member of a gang is involved in a single case, Hon’be the Apex Court observed that on perusal of the definition of ‘gang’ and ‘gangster’ in the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters Act, continuation of illegal activities is not required as required in the the Maharastra Control of Organized Crime Act as well as the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act. Therefore, even if the member of a gang is involved in a single base case, the provisions of the Gangsters Act can be imposed against him. Paragraph No. 39 of Shraddha Gupta (supra) case is quoted as under:- “39. On a fair reading of the definitions of ‘Gang’ contained in Section 2(b) and ‘Gangster’ contained in Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act, a ‘Gangster’ means a member or leader or organiser of a gang including any person who abets or assists in the activities of a gang enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2, who either acting singly or collectively commits and indulges in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) can be said to have committed the offence under the Gangsters Act and can be prosecuted and punished for the offence under the Gangsters Act. There is no specific provision under the Gangsters Act, 1986 like the specific provisions under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 and the Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organized Crime Act, 2015 that while prosecuting an accused under the Gangsters Act, there shall be more than one offence or the FIR/charge sheet. As per the settled position of law, the provisions of the statute are to be read and considered as it is. Therefore, considering the provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986 as they are, even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet, if it is found that the accused is a member of a ‘Gang’ and has indulged in any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, such as, 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 and he/she can be termed as ‘Gangster’ within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act, he/she can be prosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act. Therefore, so far as the Gangsters Act, 1986 is concerned, there can be prosecution against a person even in case of a single offence/FIR/charge sheet for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Act provided such an anti-social activity is 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.” 11. The Apex Court in the case of Shraddha Gupta (supra) observed that on the basis of a single case, the Gangsters Act can be imposed against a person. This observation was widely misused by the police authorities for invoking the Gangsters Act only on the basis of a single case, ignoring the fact that the observation of the Apex Court in Shraddha Gupta (supra) is regarding commission of a single case by the member of a gang or by any person who assists or abets the gang in its illegal activities. Therefore, though the Gangsters Act can be imposed only on the basis of a single case against a criminal, the basic condition must be fulfilled that the criminal must be a member of a gang and involved in illegal activities as mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, only then the Gangsters Act can be imposed only on the basis of a single case. However, this Court came across a number of cases where the Gangsters Act has been imposed only on the basis of a single case against an accused without there being sufficient material to show that the person is a member of a gang and involved in illegal activities, mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act. This is nothing but misuse of the Gangsters Act by some of the the State Officers. 12. The State Government, just to prevent the misuse of the Gangsters Act, has framed the Rules, 2021. While framing these rules, the State Government also took into consideration several guidelines issued by the High Court as well as the Apex Court regarding invocation of the Gangsters Act. The basic purpose of issuance of the Rules, 2021 is that no innocent person be falsely implicated in the Gangsters Act by providing check and balance on the police as well as administrative officers who are competent authorities to recommend and approve the gang chart before registration of the F.I.R. under the Gangsters Act. 13. The majority of criminal Acts and Rules, enacted and framed by the State, are substantially based on societal norms which can be traced back to the religious teachings, found in the religious texts. 14. This Court is of the view that the object of procedural Rules, framed under the Gangsters Act as well as in other criminal laws, must be tested on the old saying that “99 accused may be acquitted, but one innocent person should not be punished”. 15. Rigveda, the ancient Indian Vedic texts contains several hymns and verses that prohibit harassment and oppression of innocent people. Several verses of Rigveda emphasize the importance of protecting the innocent and the weak and warn against oppressing or harassing them. The Rigveda teaches that Gods are on the side of the oppressed and will punish those who engage in harassment and oppression. Several verses of Rigveda emphasize the importance of protecting the innocent and the weak and warn against oppressing or harassing them. The Rigveda teaches that Gods are on the side of the oppressed and will punish those who engage in harassment and oppression. The Mandal-1, Sukta-5th, Varg-10th (1.5.10) of the Rigveda (interpretation by Swami Dayanand Saraswati) is being quoted as under:- Indra, who are the object of praises, let no men do injury to our persons; you are mighty, keep off violence." 16. The Bible, both old and new testaments, condemns harassment and oppression of an innocent person. The Bible teaches that protecting the innocent and promoting justice is a fundamental aspect of faith and harassment and oppression are considered sinful behaviour. The relevant extract of the Bible is quoted as under:- “Exodus 23:7 Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty.” 17. Quran, the holy book of Islam, strictly condemns harassment and oppression of innocent people. The Quran teaches that protecting the innocent and promoting justice is a fundamental aspect of Islam and oppression and harassment are considered grave sins. The Surah Al-Ma’edah (Surah-5), Ayat 32 of the Quran is quoted as under:- Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.” 18. The above verses of different religious texts clearly show that harassment of innocent persons is a great sin and our legal system also prescribes several procedures to protect the innocent persons and punish the guilty. Before the enforcement of the Constitution of India, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Ji, while addressing the final constituent assembly, said “However good the constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good it will prove to be bad”. Therefore, providing law and procedure for its implementation may not result as desired if the persons who are implementing the same have mala fide intension or do not respect the law and its procedure. 19. Therefore, providing law and procedure for its implementation may not result as desired if the persons who are implementing the same have mala fide intension or do not respect the law and its procedure. 19. Similar is the situation in the State of Uttar Pradesh Here, though the policy of State Government for zero tolerance towards crime is appreciable but if some of its officials do not follow proper procedure and guidelines, prescribed by the State Government itself, then in such circumstances the object of the Government to achieve good governance and zero tolerance towards crime was bound to be defeated. 20. This Court came across myriad cases where it was found that the competent authorities under the Gangsters Act were not following the procedure prescribed by the Rules, 2021 in preparation of gang chart which is the first stage of invoking the Gangsters Act upon criminal(s). Though all the State officers cannot be blamed, but certainly there is a considerable number of State officers who are invoking the Gangsters Act without following due procedure laid down by the Rules, 2021 itself. Considering the laxity on the part of some of the State officers in preparation of the gang chart against the well established procedure laid down by the State Government, several Benches of this Court had issued directions for preparation of the gang chart as well as for invocation of the Gangsters Act. 21. This Court in the case of Anil Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; 2024 (3) ADJ 285 (DB) observed that satisfaction of the competent authorities should be the satisfaction in true sense and not the formality and a dishonest satisfaction will be no satisfaction at all. Paragraph No.32 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted as under:- “32. Satisfaction of the competent authority only means that the competent authority must be in fact satisfy and not a dishonest satisfaction, which will be no satisfaction at all. The satisfaction contemplated by the Gangster Rule is satisfaction in point of fact on the materials placed before the competent authority. The satisfaction of the competent authority referred to under the Rule is not with respect to the allegations levelled against the gangster but the satisfaction is confined to those allegations that the accused can be prosecuted under the Gangster Act. The satisfaction of the competent authority referred to under the Rule is not with respect to the allegations levelled against the gangster but the satisfaction is confined to those allegations that the accused can be prosecuted under the Gangster Act. Whatever may be the nature of charge against the accused, the satisfaction of the competent authority should be with regard to that the materials placed before him and the nature of the accused indulging in community antisocial activities. It is expedient to sanction prosecution under the Gangster Act.” 22. In the case of Asim @ Hassim (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, just to prevent misuse of the Gangsters Act, observed that the Gangsters Act can be imposed on a person who is a member of a gang and who is also involved in the category of illegal activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act and, therefore, without mentioning the relevant provision which makes him gangster, the provision of the Gangsters Act cannot be invoked merely because that person has committed an offence. In that case the Division Bench of this Court directed that while registering an F.I.R. under the Gangsters Act, relevant provision of Section 2(b) regarding illegal activities in which the person is involved and on the basis whereof he was termed as gangster should also be mentioned in the F.I.R. Though this judgement was referred to the larger Bench by another Division Bench in the case of Dharmendra @ Bheema vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1049 of 2024, the reference is yet to be decided. Therefore, till the reference is decided, the law laid down in Asim @ Hassim (supra) is still hold good. Paragarphs No. 5 & 9 of the judgement in Asim @ Hassim (supra) are quoted as under:- “5. From the provisions, quoted as above as well as from the perusal of other provisions of Gangsters Act, it is clear that a person can be prosecuted under Section 3 of Gangsters Act only after he falls under the definition of "gangster" being part of the gang which is involved in anti social activities as mentioned in Section 2(b)(i) to (xxv) of the Act. The purpose of making special provisions of Gangsters Act for dealing with gangsters and for preventing their anti social activities. The purpose of making special provisions of Gangsters Act for dealing with gangsters and for preventing their anti social activities. The provision of this Act are stringent and are therefore required to be interpreted strictly so as to prevent their misuse on the part of State authorities. 9. In the present case, the impugned F.I.R. was registered u/s 3(1) Gangsters Act, without mentioning the corresponding provision, mentioning the anti social activities in which the accused is involved and on the basis of which he was named as gangster. A person cannot be punished without specifying the offence committed by him which would justify his classification as a Gangster.” 23. This Court again considered the Rules, 2021 on finding that the gang chart is not being prepared as per the rules and issued several directions in the case of Sanni Mishra (supra). Following guidelines were issued in paragraph No.22 of the aforesaid judgment:- “22. In view of the above, this court lays down following directions for preparation of gang-chart before lodging FIR under the Gangster Act, 1986 : (i) Date of filing of chargesheet under base case must be mentioned in Column-6 of the gang-chart except in cases under Rule 22(2) of the Gangster Rules, 2021. (ii) While forwarding or approving the gang-chart, competent authorities must record their required satisfaction by writing in clear words, not by signing the printed/typed satisfaction. (iii) There must be material available for the perusal of the court which shows that the District Magistrate before approving the gang-chart had conducted a joint meeting with the District Police Chief and held a due discussion for invocation of the Gangster Act, 1986.” 24. The above guidelines show that the Court has specifically directed the competent authorities that at the time of preparing gang chart, the date of filing of the charge sheet ought to be mentioned in column-6 of the gang chart and the competent authorities must record their required satisfaction by writing in clear words and not by signing a pre-typed satisfaction. It was also directed that before approving the gang chart, the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police should conduct a joint meeting with the District Police Chief to discuss material available for invocation of the Gangsters Act. 25. It was also directed that before approving the gang chart, the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police should conduct a joint meeting with the District Police Chief to discuss material available for invocation of the Gangsters Act. 25. In pursuance of the judgements in Asim @ Hassim (supra) as well as Sanni Mishra (supra), the Director General of Police, U.P., issued circular dated 19.1.2024 to all the District Police Chiefs. The circular dated 19.1.2024, issued by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh is quoted as under:- a- Under Rule 5(3)a there must be a joint meeting of the District Magistrate/ Commissioner of Police with the District Police Chief. b- Under Rule 8(3) the Status of each case on the date of the approval of the Gang chart should be strictly mentioned. c- According to Rules the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Nodal Officer) must record his satisfaction in clear words as required under Rule16(1) of the Rules. d- Under Rule 16(2) Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police after going through the recommendation of the Addl. Superintendent of Police under Rule 16(1) shall record his satisfaction for approving the same and will forward the same to the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police. e- Under Rule 17(2) clearly prohibits the use of the pre-printed rubber stamp for all gang chart for its approval as such, the satisfaction etc. should be seen after recorded due application of mind; and as such, the signature of the concerned authority on the printed form clearly shows of non application of mind. f- According to Rule 20(3) before submitting the charge sheet before the concerned special court the Addl. Superintendent of Police shall obtained the opinion from the concerned prosecuting officer in order to ascertain that there is no illegality/irregularity either in conducting of the investigation or with regard to outcome of the document collected during course of investigation and after that approval the Addl. Superintendent of Police shall forward the same to Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police for its approval as required under Rule 20(4). g- Under Rule 26(1) the Commissioner of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police as the case may be, will peruse the entire record whenever the aforesaid Charge sheet is forwarded before him for the grant of the approval as required under Rule 20. g- Under Rule 26(1) the Commissioner of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police as the case may be, will peruse the entire record whenever the aforesaid Charge sheet is forwarded before him for the grant of the approval as required under Rule 20. h- Rule 5, the gang-chart which is prepared prosecuting the gang member shall only contained the number of the cases which are considered for invoking the provision but excluding the cases on the basis of which earlier any proceeding under the Gangster Act was initiated. However, the list of the aforesaid cases shall be annexed along with the gang chart as provided under Rule 5D in form prescribed under the Rule. 25. At last, this court feels it appropriate to express its displeasure about the manner of preparing the gang-charts in Gangster Act, 1986. This court finds in number of cases that the police authorities as well as District Magistrate forwarded/ approved the gang-chart without application of mind and contrary to Rules, 2021. This negligence on the part of police officials as well as of District Magistrate on the one hand fails to protect the innocent person and on the other hand, hardcore criminals and gangsters get benefit of such technical lacuna in Court. 26. Therefore, the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh is directed to issue necessary guidelines to all the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP Additional SP regarding the preparation, forwarding and approval of the gangchart in accordance with the Gangster Rules, 2021 in light of observations made above. 26. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh issued circular dated 21.1.2024 to the Director General of Police, to all the District Magistrates/Commissioners of Police as well as District Police Chiefs to strictly follow the guidelines, issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Asim @ Hassim (supra) as well as Sanni Mishra (supra) while preparing the gang chart. The circular dated 21.1.2024, issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P., is quoted as under:- 27. From a perusal of the above mentioned circulars of the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh as well as Chief Secretary, Govt. The circular dated 21.1.2024, issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P., is quoted as under:- 27. From a perusal of the above mentioned circulars of the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh as well as Chief Secretary, Govt. of U.P., it is clear that there were specific directions to all the District Magistrates as well as District Police Chiefs to record their required satisfaction in the gang chart instead of signing a pre-typed satisfaction and it was also provided that there must be a joint meeting to conduct due discussion between the District Magistrate and the District Police Chief before approving the gang chart. It was also directed by those circulars that the competent authorities must peruse all the documents annexed with the gang chart before forwarding and approving the same. 28. However, despite issuance of circulars by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh as well as the Director General of Police to all the District Magistrates as well as other police officers, this Court found that some of the officers were still not following the procedure while preparing the gang chart and defective gang charts were being prepared without application of mind on the part of the competent authorities. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar @ Raju vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9428 of 2024, specifically directed the Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of Uttar Pradesh to issue appropriate direction to all the District Police Chiefs as well the District Magistrates to maintain a register for recording the minutes/resolutions of the joint meet held as per Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules, 2021 and further direction was issued to all the District Police Chiefs, District Magistrates as well as Nodal Officers that while signing the gang chart they should mention the date just below their signatures. The judgement passed in Rajeev Kumar @ Raju (supra) is quoted as under:- “Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA on behalf of the State. This Court by order dated 04.06.2024 directed the learned AGA to produce the register relating to joint meeting held in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (in short Gangster Rules, 2021) in original but today learned AGA has produced a copy of Resolution signed by the District Magistrate and S.P. concerned. This Court by order dated 04.06.2024 directed the learned AGA to produce the register relating to joint meeting held in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (in short Gangster Rules, 2021) in original but today learned AGA has produced a copy of Resolution signed by the District Magistrate and S.P. concerned. It was also informed by the learned AGA that there is no provision for maintaining a register for the purpose of recording the Resolution of the joint meeting as required by Section 5 (3)(a) of the Gangster Rules, 2021. Upon a perusal of the gang chart it appears that the District Magistrate, while approving the same, did not mention any date just below his signature and, therefore, this fact also causes doubt about the joint meeting. However, from a perusal of the entire gang chart, this Court is of the view that the required satisfaction was recorded by the Superintendent of Police as well as by the District Magistrate. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned FIR or the gang chart annexed. It would be appropriate to refer to our holding in Sanni Mishra @ Sanjayan Kumar Mishra v. State Of Uttar Pradesh and Other: Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235826-DB, where this Court observed that the material must be produced before the Court regarding the joint meeting. However, in the present case only a Resolution signed by the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate was produced before the Court, which could be prepared even after approving the gang chart. In this circumstances, this Court directs the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow to issue an appropriate direction to all the SPs, SSPs, Commissioners of Police as well as District Magistrates that a register should be maintained for recording Resolutions of joint meetings held as per Rule 5 (3)(a) of the Gangsters Rules, 2021. It is further directed that all the SPs, SSPs, Commissioners of Police and also the District Magistrates as well as the Nodal Officers while signing a gang chart, shall mention the date below their signatures. In this view of the matter, this petition fails and is dismissed. Let this order be communicated to the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) today.” 29. In this view of the matter, this petition fails and is dismissed. Let this order be communicated to the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow by the Registrar (Compliance) today.” 29. This Court again found that several police officers/District Magistrates are still not following the guidelines issued by different judgements of this Court, though same were duly circulated by the State Government by circular dated 21.1.2024. Thereafter, this Court in the case of Mohd. Arif @ Guddu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10980 of 2024, observed that several Nodal Officers/District Police Chiefs were not following the directions issued by the State Government by the circular dated 21.1.2024 and directed the Chief Secretary as well as Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Govt. of Uttar Pradesh to look into this matter and take appropriate action against the negligent State officers. Paragraph Nos. 11 & 12 of the aforesaid judgement are quoted as under:- “11. It is very surprising that Nodal Officer as well as Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur has prepared and recommended the gang chart in the month of March, 2024 by signing the pre-typed satisfaction and District Magistrate-Jaunpur, has approved the same on 30.04.2024 again by signing the pre-typed satisfaction despite issuance of circular dated 19.01.2024 by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh and also the circular dated 21.01.2024 by the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh regarding compliance of the direction issued in Sanni Mishra (supra) and Asim @ Hassim (supra) case for recommending and approving the gang chart. This fact shows the sheer negligence on the part of these officers. 12. Therefore, this court is of the view that Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh as well as Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh should look into this matter and take appropriate action.” 30. This Court again found in the present cases that the gang charts of the impugned FIRs have been prepared in utter violation of the Rules, 2021 as well as directions issued by this Court in Sanni Mishra (supra), Asim @ Hassim (supra), Rajeev Kumar @ Raju (supra), Anil Mishra (supra) and also in violation of circular dated 19.1.2024 issued by the Director General of Police as well as circular dated 21.1.2024 issued by the Chief Secretary, Govt. Uttar Pradesh 31. Uttar Pradesh 31. Therefore, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the State Government to send the District Police Chiefs, District Magistrates/Police Commissioners as well as Nodal Officers, who are the competent authorities under the Gangsters Act, for training or crash course so that they could learn how to prepare a gang chart, strictly in accordance with the Rules, 2021 as well as several directions issued by this Court and also to apprise them about appropriate cases where the Gangsters Act can be invoked. This training on the one hand will reduce the scope of getting away of the gangsters from the clutches of the Gangsters Act and on the other it will save innocent persons who are merely involved in petty, one or two cases, though they would not come within the definition of the gangsters as per Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, from getting booked under the Gangsters Act. Such training or crash course can be conducted in a phased manner in the Judicial Training and Research Institute, Lucknow (J.T.R.I.) which can be arranged by the Principal Secretary Law/LR, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh or at any other place where the State govt. may feel it appropriate. 32. For ready reference, guidelines, issued by this Court in several judgements regarding preparation of gang chart as well as for invocation of Gangsters Act, are being summarised as under:- “(i). While forwarding or approving the gang chart, the competent authorities must record their satisfaction as required by Rule 16 of the Rules, 2021 by writing in clear words and not by simply signing printed/pre-typed satisfaction. (ii). Satisfaction of the competent authorities should reflect that they have applied their minds not only on the gang chart but also the documents/forms annexed with the gang chart. (iii). Date of filing the charge sheet under the base case must be mentioned in Column-6 of the gang chart except in cases under Rule 22(ii) of the Rules, 2021 where Gangsters Act can be imposed during investigation. (iv). Before approving the gang chart, the District Magistrate should conduct due discussion for invocation of the Gangsters Act in a joint meeting with the District Police Chief as per Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules, 2021 and minutes/resolutions of the meeting must be recorded in a register maintained for that purpose. That register should be made available to the court for its perusal if it so requires. (v). That register should be made available to the court for its perusal if it so requires. (v). While signing their satisfaction competent authorities (District Police Chiefs, District Magistrates and Nodal Officers) should mention the date just below their signatures. (vi). While approving the gang chart, the District Magistrate/Commissioner of Police should also verify whether the Nodal Officer and District Police Chief have properly recorded their satisfaction as per the Rules, 2021 as well as the guidelines issued by the State Government in pursuance of the directions issued in several judgements by the High Court. (vii). Before invocation of the Gangsters Act, competent authorities should also record satisfaction that offence of base case/cases has/have been committed by a person who comes within the definition of “Gangster” as per Section 2(c) of the Gangsters Act and there must be material for such satisfaction. This satisfaction must be mentioned in the minutes of the joint meeting conducted as per Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules, 2021.” 33. On perusal of the gang chart of the impugned F.I.R. in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition no. 9930 of 2024 and also considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that there is no proper satisfaction recorded by the competent authorities because they simply signed pre-typed satisfaction which is against the guidelines issued in Sanni Mishra (supra) as well as Circular dated 21.01.2024 of the State government. It is also clear that while recording the satisfaction for approval, the District Magistrate, Mahoba has not mentioned the date below his signature which is against the guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar @ Raju (supra). 34. Apart from this, it also appears from the impugned FIR that only the section, provided for the penalty, has been mentioned without mentioning the corresponding provision of Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, regarding his anti social activities on the basis of which the petitioner was termed as gangster, which is against the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Asim @ Hassim (supra). Therefore, the impugned F.I.R. dated 2.5.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 236 of 2024, under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar Mahoba, District Mahoba along with its gang chart is hereby quashed. 35. On perusal of the gang chart of the impugned F.I.R. in Criminal Misc. Therefore, the impugned F.I.R. dated 2.5.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 236 of 2024, under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar Mahoba, District Mahoba along with its gang chart is hereby quashed. 35. On perusal of the gang chart of the impugned F.I.R. in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 10379 of 2024 and 10852 of 2024 as well as after considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah did not record any satisfaction while forwarding the gang chart to the District Magistrate and thereafter the District Magistrate again did not record his proper satisfaction as required by the Rule 16(3) of the Rules, 2021 and there is also no material showing that any joint meeting was conducted between the District Magistrate as well as the District Police Chief, Etawah, who were approving the gang chart. Therefore, the impugned F.I.R. dated 31.5.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 116 of 2024, under Sections 2 & 3 of the Gangsters Act, P.S. Friends Colony, District Etawah along with its gang chart is hereby quashed. 36. On perusal of the gang chart of the impugned F.I.R. in the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10916 of 2024, it is clear that the Nodal Officer while signing his satisfaction did not mention any date below his signature which is against the decision of Rajeev Kumar @ Raju (supra). The gang chart in the present case also shows that while recording his satisfaction, the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor did not mention that he had perused forms / enclosures annexed with the gang chart and he simply relied upon the facts mentioned in the gang chart and recommended the gang chart to the District Magistrate but the District Magistrate, Bijnor also did not look into this aspect and approved the gang chart. Therefore, the impugned F.I.R. dated 2.6.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 274 of 2024, under Sections 2(b)(i) and 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor along with its gang chart is hereby quashed. 37. On perusal of the gang chart of the impugned F.I.R. in the Criminal Misc. Therefore, the impugned F.I.R. dated 2.6.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 274 of 2024, under Sections 2(b)(i) and 3(1) of the Gangsters Act, P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor along with its gang chart is hereby quashed. 37. On perusal of the gang chart of the impugned F.I.R. in the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10968 of 2024, it is clear that the satisfaction was not recorded by the competent authorities in the gang chart but they simply signed pre-typed satisfaction which is against the Rules, 2021 as well as the directions issued by this Court in Sanni Mishra (supra). Therefore, the impugned F.I.R. dated 14.5.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 108 of 2024, under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, P.S. Alau, District Mainpuri along with its gang chart is hereby quashed. 38. It is relevant to mention here that in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others; 2011 (14) SCC 770 , all the consequential proceedings of the impugned FIRs in all the above five writ petitions are also quashed. 39. With the aforesaid observation, all the above five writ petitions are allowed. 40. However the competent authorities are at liberty to proceed against the petitioners afresh in accordance with the Rules, 2021 as well as the guidelines issued by this Court. 41. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this judgement to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and the Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of Uttar Pradesh for compliance within 24 hours. 42. Registrar (Compliance) will also send a copy of this judgement to the Principal Secretary Law/L.R., Uttar Pradesh for placing the same before the Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh for his perusal.