1. The present four applicants, Vishnu Dayal, Vishwanath, Raghunath and Shrimati Vidya Devi have challenged the proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 130 of 2003 State v. Vishnu Dayal under Section ⅔ U.P Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986(in short “Gangsters Act”) and the order dated 17-01-2006 passed in the aforesaid Special Session Trial relating to Crime No. 109 of 2003.

2. The prosecution allegations, in a thumb-nail description, as is perceptible from the first information report (Annexure No. 1), are that one Sadhuram Verma resident of village Dwarikapur Jatt had married with Shrimati Vidya Devi but unfortunately even after two and half years Shrimati Vidya Devi could not attain motherhood as a result of which the aforesaid Sadhuram Verma solemnised a second marriage with Shrimati Ramshree, sister of the informant Ramesh Chandra. Because of the bigamy the aforesaid Vidya Devi nurtured animosity from Sadhuram and Ramshree and she left the house and started living with Badloo Verma and his sons, who is brother of Sadhuram Verma aforesaid. The aforesaid Vidya Devi also wanted to grab the real estate of Sadhuram. On 04-06-2003 Ramesh Chandra, the informant accompanied by his uncle Ram Kishore came to the village Dwarikapur Jatt to look after the welfare of his sister Ramshree and her husband Sadhuram Verma. When all the aforesaid persons were sitting in front of the door of Sadhuram Verma and talking to each other, then Vishnu Dayal son of Badloo, armed with unauthorised fire-arm along with his two brothers Vishwanath and Raghunath, both armed with axe and their mother Vidya Devi carrying a torch came to the said spot where a lantern was burning and flashing the torch at Sadhuram Verma. Vidya Devi instigated Vishnu Dayal for annihilating Sadhuram Verma. On her instigation Vishnu Dayal shot dead Sadhuram Verma on the spot. His wife Ramshree and Biharilal tried to save the deceased on which Vishwa Nath and Raghunath assaulted them by axe and caused them serious injuries. Informant and his uncle Ram Kishore and Raghubar escaped from the spot, crying for help. Because of the aforesaid incident lot of commotion occurred at the place of the incident. After committing the murder accused persons made their escape good towards the tube well hurling a warning that if some body will follow them, he will also be annihilated. The informant scribed the F.I.R of the said incident which ocurred on 04-06-2003 at 8.15 p.m and after covering a distance of one and half kilometre lodged the F.I.R at Police Station Jahanabad as Crime No. 109 of 2003 on the same day at 9.15 p.m for offences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C and Sections ⅔ of the Gangsters Act. Registration of crime engineered the investigation in which the statement of informant Ramesh Chandra was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C and that of the other witnesses Raghubar, Ram Kishore, Shrimati Ramshree, Bihari Lal were also recorded.

3. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on the next day of incident i.e 05-06-2003 which indicates that the deceased had sustained firearm entry wound 2 cm × 2 cm × cavity deep, blackening and tattooing present. The other injured witnesses Shrimati Ramshree had sustained three incised wounds and Bihari Lal had sustained six incised wounds.

4. After completing the usual investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet on 26-07-2003 as Charge-Sheet No. 67/93 against the applicants for offences under Sections 302/307 I.P.C and ⅔ Gangsters Act, on the basis of which case was registered against the applicants.

5. Accused persons in the trial moved an application that against them no offence under Sections ⅔ Gangsters Act is made out and, therefore, no charge should be framed against them under the aforesaid Sections. The trial Judge, after hearing the prosecution and the accused persons came to the conclusion that the action of the accused persons fall within the mischief of Section 2 of the Gangsters Act and on the facts of the case Section 2(B)(1) and Section 2(B)(XI) of the Gangsters Act is also attracted and therefore, refused the prayer of the accused persons to discharge them from the aforesaid offences and transfer the trial for being conducted by a regular Court instead of Special Judge.

6. I have heard Sri J.S Sengar, learned senior counsel for the applicants in support of this application and the learned A.G.A in opposition.

7. Sri Sengar contended that in view of the law laid down in the decision of Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P, 1987 A.C.C 164 :(1987 All LJ 806) there was no gang. He further contended that from the F.I.R the act of the accused persons was an individual act and is not covered under the definition of Gangsters Act and, therefore, accused persons have been wrongly charge-sheeted in the said offence by the police. He further submitted that the trial Judge has also wrongly rejected the prayer of the accused persons to discharge them under the aforesaid Sections. He, there-fore, contended that the whole charge-sheet is illegal and deserves to be quashed.

8. Learned A.G.A on the other hand, contended that from the facts mentioned in the F.I.R and discovered during the investigation the activities of the accused persons is fully covered under the definition clause of Gangsters Act and, therefore, they have been rightly charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections ⅔ Gangsters Act and the trial court has rightly rejected their prayer for discharging them from the said offences. He submitted that the Special Judge Gangsters Act is rightly trying the accused persons and there is no dearth of power with him to try the applicants. Learned A.G.A further submitted that if any member of a gang commits any offence then Gangsters Act is immediately in voked and all the members of the Gang are responsible for the offences committed by a single member of the Gang. He concludingly submitted that the property which belonged to the deceased was not to be allowed to be ploughed by the accused persons and they are even tampering with the evidences and moreover the fact that whether a gang existed or not require evidence to be led in the trial and the present Criminal Misc. Application is devoid of merit and should be rejected.

9. I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides. For a ready reference the definition clause under the Gangsters Act is reproduced below:

“DEFINITIONS. In this Act,—

(a) “Code” means the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Act No. 2 of 1974);

(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, indulging in anti-social 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

(ii) distilling or manufacturing or storing or transporting or importing or exporting or selling or distributing any liquor, or intoxicating or dangerous drugs, or other intoxicants or narcotics or cultivating any plant, in contravention of any of the provisions of the U.P Excise Act, 1910(U.P Act No. 4 of 1910), or the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(Act No. 61 of 1985), or any other law for the time being in force, or

(iii) occupying or taking possession of immovable property otherwise than in accordance with law, or setting up false claims for title or possession of immovable property whether in himself or any other person, or

(iv) preventing or attempting to prevent any public servant or any witness from discharging his lawful duties, or

(v) offences punishable under the Suppression of immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956(Act No. 104 of 1956), or

(vi) offences punishable under Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867(Act No. 3 of 1867), or

(vii) preventing any person from offering bids in auction lawfully conducted, or tender, lawfully invited, by or on behalf of any Government department, local body or public or private undertaking, for any lease or rights or supply of goods or work to be done, or

(viii) preventing or disturbing the smooth running by any person of his lawful business, profession, trade or employment or any other lawful activity connected therewith, or

(ix) offences punishable under Section 171-E of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or in preventing or obstructing any public election being lawfully held, by physically preventing the voter from exercising his electoral rights, or

(x) inciting others to resort to violence to disturb communal harmony, or

(xi) creating panic, alarm or terror in public, or

(xii) terrorising or assaulting employees or owners or occupiers of public or private undertakings or factories and causing mischief in respect of their properties, or

(xiii) inducing or attempting to induce any person to go to foreign countries on false representation that any employment, trade or profession shall be provided to him in such foreign country, or

(xiv) kidnapping or abducting any person with intent to extort ransom, or

(xv) diverting or otherwise preventing any aircraft or public transport vehicle from following its scheduled course;

(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;

(d) “public servant” means a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (Act No. 45 of 1860), or any other law for the time being in force, and includes any person who lawfully assist the police or other authorities of the State, in investigation or prosecution or punishment of an offence punishable under this Act, whether by giving information or evidence relating to such offence or offender or in any other manner;

(e) “member of the family of a public servant” means his parents or spouse and brother, sister, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter or the spouses of any of them, and includes a person dependent on or residing with the public servant and a person in whose welfare the public servant is interested;

(f) words and phrases used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the Indian Penal Code shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in such Codes.”

10. From the definition clause it is per se clear that a gang is a group of one or more persons who commit the crimes mentioned under the definition clause for the motive of earning undue advantage whether pecuniary, material or otherwise. Even a single crime committed by a gang is sufficient to implant Gangsters Act on such members of gang and repetition of crime is not desired for invoking offences under the said Act. The definition clause, as mentioned above does not engulf plurality of offence before the Gangsters Act is invoked. It is an Act to achieve an avowed object of arresting the activities of organised criminate and members of their gang. Gangsterism in the recent times has taken menacing dimensions and lives and liberty of citizens has been pushed against the walls of organised crimes. This type of offences have to be dealt with sternly and with tenacity. Further the offence under the Gangsters Act can be implanted on a group of persons who act individually or collectively.

11. In the present case the incident was motivated and executed because of grabbing of property of the deceased as the accused persons are very close relatives of deceased and are in fact, his real nephews and wife of his real own brother. These accused persons had an evil eye on the property of the deceased because of which they have committed the murder of their own blood relation. The offence was well chalked out and pre-planned. This certainly is gangsterism. This fact clearly brings out the activity of the applicants within the perview of the Gangsters Act. The contention of Sri Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants, is that this was an individual act and from the F.I.R it cannot be said that the murder had taken place because of the lust of the property and, therefore, the Gangsters Act is not applicable, does not appeal at all as the said contention is against the facts of the case. I have gone through the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit, (1987 All LJ 806) (supra). The said judgment does not countenance the submissions raised by Sri Sengar, learned counsel for the applicants. From the facts of the case it is perceptibly clear that embedded motive in the minds of the culprits was to grab the property and to gain pecuniary advantage for them. This certainly brings in their case within the purview of the Gangsters Act. There does not seem to be any merit in this application, which stands dismissed.

12. Petition dismissed.