Violence In One Form Or Another Is Not A Sine Qua Non For A Group Of Persons To Qualify As A 'Gang': Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that violence in one form or the other is not a sine qua non for a group of persons to qualify as a ‘gang’ under Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Perusing Section 2(b) of the Act of 1986, the bench of Justice JJ Munir observed that the twin object of disturbing public order or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary advantage etc. may be achieved through the practice of violence, threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise. “The employment of the word 'otherwise' after 'coercion' is not to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding word like coercion, intimidation, violence etc. Rather, the employment of the word 'otherwise' shows that the group may act in any manner to achieve the object of disturbing public order or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary advantage etc., where violence or coercion or intimidation may not at all be involved. Of course, all that is done by the group, acting in unison or a member singly, must be indulgence in one or the other anti-social activities enumerated in the various clauses of sub-Section (b) of Section 2 of the Act of 1986,” the Court observed. With this, the Court dismissed a plea moved by Vinod Bihari Lal, the Director (Administration), Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, seeking to quash the proceedings against him under Section 2/3 of the 1986 Act pending in the Court of the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Allahabad. The case in brief The FIR lodged against the applicant (VB Lal) stated that Lal is the leader of an organised gang comprising two men and they are proficient in the commission of economic crimes through fraud and deceit, being offences of the kind, described in Chapters XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was further alleged that by the perpetration of such offences, the members of the gang gain personal, material and pecuniary benefits for themselves which they do by tampering and forging documents. Lastly, it stated that by the commissioning of such offences, they accumulated wealth, and because of their fear and terror among members of the public, no one comes forward to lodge a report against them or muster the courage to testify in Court. Several other FIRs were also lodged against Lal and others containing similar allegations. Based on all these materials, the informant reported that Vinod B. Lal and David Dutta have committed an offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the Act of 1986. Accordingly, a gang chart was prepared and the same was approved by the District Magistrate. The FIR culminated into a chargesheet and finally, the Sessions Trial was registered on the file of the Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Allahabad. Arguments put forth Challenging the entire proceedings, Lal moved the High Court wherein the Senior Counsel Manish Tiwari appearing for Lal argued that to constitute a Gang, the two essential ingredients are 'violence' or 'disturbance of public order' indulged in by a group of persons, acting either singly or collectively, for the purpose of pecuniary gain etc. Against this backdrop, it was argued that none of the offences charged against the applicant, either involve violence or the disturbance of public order and therefore, even if there be allegations about pecuniary gain, the consequences under the Act of 1986 would not attract. Court’s observations At the outset, the Court noted that sub-Section (b) of Section 2 of the 1986 Act of 1986 indicates that with the object of disturbing public order or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or another advantage for himself or any other person, a group of persons acting singly or collectively may act by violence or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion or otherwise. “Thus, the employment of the words 'otherwise' after the word 'coercion' indicates that the twin object of disturbing public order or gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary advantage etc. is the hallmark of a group acting through a member, singly or collectively, to qualify as a gang,” the Court further added. Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that temporal and pecuniary advantages may be gained through anti-social activities of a non-violent kind as well, so long as there is a group of persons determined to do it individually or in unison. Further, taking note of the contents of the 5 FIRs on the foot of which the impugned prosecution has been launched, the Court found abundant material about the group of persons, of which the applicant is the leader, threatening violence and indulging in coercion. The Court also rejected the objection with regard to the mode of approval of the gang chart as it noted that where the case is already up for trial after the conclusion of the investigation, any fallacy...

Violence In One Form Or Another Is Not A Sine Qua Non For A Group Of Persons To Qualify As A 'Gang': Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Violence In One Form Or Another Is Not A Sine Qua Non For A Group Of Persons To Qualify As A 'Gang': Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers