High Court

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The present application has been preferred challenging the chargesheet dated 02.06.2024 and cognizance order dated 03.06.2024 passed in SST No.72 of 2024 (State Vs. Arshad @ Bahuda and others), arising out of Case Crime No.250 of 2023, under Section 3(1) Gangster Act, Police Station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court No.5, Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the said chargesheet and cognizance order only on the ground that Rules 16 and 17 (2) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (for short ''Rules 2021"), have not been followed in its true spirit by approving and forwarding authorities. In support of the prayer sought through the instant application, learned counsel for applicant placed reliance upon the judgements rendered by Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Asim Vs. State of U.P. and others [2024 (3) ADJ 360], Sanni Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others [2024 (1) ADJ 231], Rajeev Kumar @ Raju Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others [Crl. Mis. Writ Petition No.9428 of 2024, decided on 07.06.2024] and Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others [Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.9930 of 2024, decided on 26.07.2024.

4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for applicant by way of submitting that there is hardly any violation of Rules 16 and 17(2) of the Rules 2021 and applicant being gang member, is involved in disturbing public order by causing violence and threat for the purposes of obtaining unfair worldly, economic, material, pecuniary and as such, no relief can be granted to him.

5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties as well as perusal of the records, the Court notes that in the case of Ambuj Parag Dubey and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others reported in 2022 (4) ACR 3878, this court has considered the entire scheme of the Gangster Act and held that in a case, on the materials, the competent authority is convinced and prima facie satisfied that a case for prosecution is made out, he may approve the gang chart bypassing discussion with the police officials. But in a case where the competent authority is not convinced or in two mind, on the material placed by the police authorities, the competent authority may necessarily decide to call for a discussion to prima facie satisfy himself that prosecution is warranted. The proceedings that follows the approval of the gang chart cannot be faulted or quashed merely for want of discussion. Relevant paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 41 of the said judgment are 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. 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.

33. The expression satisfied is much narrower than ''application of mind'. The competent authority is not to apply his mind and satisfy himself as to whether the material placed before him would be sufficient for convicting the accused under the Gangster Act. The satisfaction is confined within a narrow domain based on the materials placed before the competent authority, the authorities forwarding the gang chart is satisfied that the accused should be prosecuted under the Gangster Act. The expression satisfaction is not satisfaction on evidence but a prima facie satisfaction based on the representations of the nodal authority and the district police that the accused should be prosecuted under the Gangster Act.

34. Rule 17 mandates that the competent authority is bound to exercise its own independent mind while forwarding the gang chart and should not be on a pre-printed rubber seal gang chart. Rule 17 reads thus: 17 (1) the Competent Authority shall be bound to exercise its own independent mind while forwarding the gang-chart. (2) A pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart should not be signed by the Competent Authority; otherwise the same shall tantamount to the fact that the Competent Authority has not exercised its free mind.

35. Rule 18 provides that gang chart shall be sent only in the manner as given in Form No. 1 of these rules.

36. Rule 17 and 18 would have to be read together. Gang chart has to be sent in the prescribed Form No. 1. The endorsement to be made by each of the authorities have also been specified in Rule 16. The rule itself prescribes and mandates a printed Form. Rule 17 merely mandates that the competent authority while approving the gang chart should not be swayed by the recommendation of the police authorities mechanically but should satisfy himself independently that the grounds for prosecution is made out. The satisfaction at that stage is subjective and does not rest upon any evidence. The competent authority has to satisfy that the materials placed with the gang chart calls for prosecution. The stage of collecting evidence follows thereafter...

41. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no ''discussion' by the competent authority with the police officers before approving the gang chart would not be fatal to the prosecution of the petitioners. The expression ''discussion' has to be followed mandatorily by the competent authority in every case does not follow from reading of the Rule, though the rule employs the word ''shall'. The Gangster Rule no where mandates the consequence of not following ''discussion' by the competent authority. In our opinion the rule mandating discussion is directory. It is left to the discretion of the competent authority, having regard to the material placed before him for approval of the gang chart. In a case, on the materials, the competent authority is convinced and prima facie satisfied that a case for prosecution is made out he may approve the gang chart bypassing discussion with the police officials. But in a case where the competent authority is not convinced or in two mind, on the material placed by the police authorities, the competent authority may necessarily decide to call for a discussion to prima facie satisfy himself that prosecution is warranted. The FIR that follows the approval of the gang chart cannot be faulted or quashed merely for want of discussion."

6. Needless to say that Gangster Rules, 2021 have been considered in great detail in Ambuj Parag Dubey (supra) and the manner in which satisfaction is to be recorded has been laid down.

7. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Ambuj Parag Dubey (supra), the Court finds that in the present case, satisfaction has been recorded as per the Gangster Rules, 2021 and Form-I of the Gangster Act, which provides the format of the gang chart. The Court, therefore, finds that satisfaction recorded by the concerned authority in the manner in which it has been done in the present case is in compliance of the Rules and it cannot be said that satisfaction is not recorded which also shows due diligence and independent application of mind by both the recommending and approving Authorities and as such, it cannot be said that there is violation of Rule 16 and 17 of Rules, 2021.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application being devoid of merit, is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Vivek Kr.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

2. The present application has been preferred challenging the chargesheet dated 02.06.2024 and cognizance order dated 03.06.2024 passed in SST No.72 of 2024 (State Vs. Arshad @ Bahuda and others), arising out of Case Crime No.250 of 2023, under Section 3(1) Gangster Act, Police Station Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Gangster Act), Court No.5, Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the said chargesheet and cognizance order only on the ground that Rules 16 and 17 (2) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (for short ''Rules 2021"), have not been followed in its true spirit by approving and forwarding authorities. In support of the prayer sought through the instant application, learned counsel for applicant placed reliance upon the judgements rendered by Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Asim Vs. State of U.P. and others [2024 (3) ADJ 360], Sanni Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others [2024 (1) ADJ 231], Rajeev Kumar @ Raju Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others [Crl. Mis. Writ Petition No.9428 of 2024, decided on 07.06.2024] and Abdul Lateef @ Mustak Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others [Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.9930 of 2024, decided on 26.07.2024.

4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for applicant by way of submitting that there is hardly any violation of Rules 16 and 17(2) of the Rules 2021 and applicant being gang member, is involved in disturbing public order by causing violence and threat for the purposes of obtaining unfair worldly, economic, material, pecuniary and as such, no relief can be granted to him.

5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties as well as perusal of the records, the Court notes that in the case of Ambuj Parag Dubey and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others reported in 2022 (4) ACR 3878, this court has considered the entire scheme of the Gangster Act and held that in a case, on the materials, the competent authority is convinced and prima facie satisfied that a case for prosecution is made out, he may approve the gang chart bypassing discussion with the police officials. But in a case where the competent authority is not convinced or in two mind, on the material placed by the police authorities, the competent authority may necessarily decide to call for a discussion to prima facie satisfy himself that prosecution is warranted. The proceedings that follows the approval of the gang chart cannot be faulted or quashed merely for want of discussion. Relevant paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 41 of the said judgment are 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. 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.

33. The expression satisfied is much narrower than ''application of mind'. The competent authority is not to apply his mind and satisfy himself as to whether the material placed before him would be sufficient for convicting the accused under the Gangster Act. The satisfaction is confined within a narrow domain based on the materials placed before the competent authority, the authorities forwarding the gang chart is satisfied that the accused should be prosecuted under the Gangster Act. The expression satisfaction is not satisfaction on evidence but a prima facie satisfaction based on the representations of the nodal authority and the district police that the accused should be prosecuted under the Gangster Act.

34. Rule 17 mandates that the competent authority is bound to exercise its own independent mind while forwarding the gang chart and should not be on a pre-printed rubber seal gang chart. Rule 17 reads thus: 17 (1) the Competent Authority shall be bound to exercise its own independent mind while forwarding the gang-chart. (2) A pre-printed rubber seal gang-chart should not be signed by the Competent Authority; otherwise the same shall tantamount to the fact that the Competent Authority has not exercised its free mind.

35. Rule 18 provides that gang chart shall be sent only in the manner as given in Form No. 1 of these rules.

36. Rule 17 and 18 would have to be read together. Gang chart has to be sent in the prescribed Form No. 1. The endorsement to be made by each of the authorities have also been specified in Rule 16. The rule itself prescribes and mandates a printed Form. Rule 17 merely mandates that the competent authority while approving the gang chart should not be swayed by the recommendation of the police authorities mechanically but should satisfy himself independently that the grounds for prosecution is made out. The satisfaction at that stage is subjective and does not rest upon any evidence. The competent authority has to satisfy that the materials placed with the gang chart calls for prosecution. The stage of collecting evidence follows thereafter...

41. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no ''discussion' by the competent authority with the police officers before approving the gang chart would not be fatal to the prosecution of the petitioners. The expression ''discussion' has to be followed mandatorily by the competent authority in every case does not follow from reading of the Rule, though the rule employs the word ''shall'. The Gangster Rule no where mandates the consequence of not following ''discussion' by the competent authority. In our opinion the rule mandating discussion is directory. It is left to the discretion of the competent authority, having regard to the material placed before him for approval of the gang chart. In a case, on the materials, the competent authority is convinced and prima facie satisfied that a case for prosecution is made out he may approve the gang chart bypassing discussion with the police officials. But in a case where the competent authority is not convinced or in two mind, on the material placed by the police authorities, the competent authority may necessarily decide to call for a discussion to prima facie satisfy himself that prosecution is warranted. The FIR that follows the approval of the gang chart cannot be faulted or quashed merely for want of discussion."

6. Needless to say that Gangster Rules, 2021 have been considered in great detail in Ambuj Parag Dubey (supra) and the manner in which satisfaction is to be recorded has been laid down.

7. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Ambuj Parag Dubey (supra), the Court finds that in the present case, satisfaction has been recorded as per the Gangster Rules, 2021 and Form-I of the Gangster Act, which provides the format of the gang chart. The Court, therefore, finds that satisfaction recorded by the concerned authority in the manner in which it has been done in the present case is in compliance of the Rules and it cannot be said that satisfaction is not recorded which also shows due diligence and independent application of mind by both the recommending and approving Authorities and as such, it cannot be said that there is violation of Rule 16 and 17 of Rules, 2021.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application being devoid of merit, is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Vivek Kr.