High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. V.K. Singh, learned Government Advocate with Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Purnendu Chakravarty assisted by Sri Shashank Singh, Ms. Ruby Chaudhary and Ms. Aishwarya Saxena, learned counsels for the private opposite parties.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:- "to quash the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, (M.P/M.L.A Court)/Additional Session Judge-I,. District-Balrampur, on application 40 B filed by Station House Officer, P.S Tulsipur, District- Balrampur, in Special Session Trial No. 85/2022, relating to Case Crime No. 02/2022, Under Section-302, 120 B I.P.C Police Station-Tulsipur, District-Balrampur, on so far as it relates to the imposition of penal cost U/s 309 Cr.PC of Rs. 10000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) on each of petitioners/applicants as well as to expunge the stricture awarded against the petitioner/applicants contained in paragraph no. 23 of the impugned order dated 21.12.2024, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this petition, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the recovery of penal cost of Rs. 10000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) from payable pension of petitioner no. 1 and payable salary of petitioner no. 2 in compliance of the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, (M.P/M.L.A Court)/Additional Session Judge-l, Disrict-Balrampur, on application 40 B filed by Station House Officer, P.S Tulsipur, District- Balrampur, in Special Session Trial No. 85/2022, relating to Case Crime No. 02/2022, Under Section- 302, 120 B I.P.C Police Station-Tulsipur, District-Balrampur, in the interest of justice."

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph no. 34, whereby, unconditional apology has been tendered by the applicants, if this Court feels that the applications so filed by the applicants creates any hindrance in the proceedings of the learned court below.

4. As a matter of fact, the applicants tried to demonstrate the correct legal position before the learned trial court concerned so that while concluding the trial pending before the learned trial court, no legal ambiguity takes place.

5. Attention has been drawn towards the application nos. 40 B and 42 B which has been rejected by the learned trial court, whereby, the legal fact was placed before the trial court that before deciding the base case, the trial in gangsters act may be decided first. The aforesaid legal submission of the applicants is based on Section 12 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as well as Rule 57 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Besides, there is one Government Order bearing no. 4080/6/P- 9-20241842633 dated 24.09.2024, which also provides the same thing. Admittedly, the trial of gangsters act is pending consideration, wherein, the prosecution witnesses are being examined, but the trial of the base case is about to conclude.

6. Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph 3 of the impugned order, whereby, the learned trial court has considered the contentions/objections of the private opposite parties on those applications referring five relevant judgements of the Apex Court by submitting that for the subject matter in question, the consideration of the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court would be necessary to arrive on the appropriate conclusion. The relevant paragraph of some of those judgements have been referred in the impugned order. The learned trial court in paragraph 16 of the impugned order has rightly observed that the creation of Special Court for trial of case in which MPs/MLAs are accused is commitment of fair trial and speedy trial of such cases. Even though such accused are not under trial prisoners. In paragraph 18 of the impugned judgement, the learned trial court has considered sections of the gangsters act and in the light of the aforesaid sections, the learned trial court has aptly commented on the applications being filed by the applicants.

7. Sri Chakravarty has further submitted that from paragraph 20 to 23 of the impugned judgement, the learned trial court has considered a peculiar circumstance to the effect that if the trial in the base case is not concluded for the reason that the trial under gangsters act is yet to conclude, the accused persons would remain in judicial custody in anticipation to conclude the trial, whereas, the intention of the legislature in MPs/MLAs cases is that the trial should be concluded with expedition. The application which has been filed by the applicants and DGC Criminal should have been filed earlier in gangster case so that the trial proceedings of gangsters act would have been expedited. The learned trial court has also observed that the aforesaid conduct of the prosecuting agency as well as the State is not only in violation of the intentions of the legislature for creation of Special Court for MPs and MLAs, but also is in utter derogation of the direction being issued by the Apex Court in re:- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3713. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned trial court dated 21.12.2024 is absolutely appropriate order and does not require any interference.

8. On that Shri Amar Singh learned counsel for the applicants has stated that since the learned trial court has already rejected those application nos. 40 B and 42 B and the present applicants are not aggrieved from such order to the extent those applications have been rejected, but the present applicants are only aggrieved from the remaining portion of the order, whereby, a cost of ?10,000/- has been imposed against the present applicants with the further direction that such amount shall be recovered from the salary of the applicants and the stricture so levelled against the present applicants by this order. Shri Amar Singh has submitted that vide impugned order dated 21.12.2024, the learned trial court has already held that all the base cases shall be decided by this Court along with the case under gangsters act, so that contrary findings may be avoided in these cases and on such observation, the the purpose of filing application has been satisfied.

9. On the first date of admission Sri Chakravarty has placed reliance on one order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the same court, wherein, one fact has been indicated by the learned trial court that in the proceedings of gangsters act, the adjournment applications have been filed and it appears that the prosecution is not trying to expedite the trial in gangsters act. The copy of the aforesaid order is taken on record.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record it emerges that, since, the present applicants have prayed a limited prayer only to the extent that cost so imposed against them, the further order that such cost would be recoverable from the salary of the applicants and the stricture of the order may be set aside, therefore, I am only dealing that prayer in a limited manner. However, before adverting to the aforesaid prayer, I would like to observe that the findings and observation of the learned trial court by the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 are absolutely appropriate and valid and the anxiety and concern which has been shown by the learned trial court is absolutely correct. Since, the trial in gangsters act and in the base case are pending consideration before the same court and it is a pious duty of the prosecuting agency as well as the State to try its level best to assist the court properly so that the trial in gangsters act be concluded at the earliest in the light of Section 12 and Rule 57 of the Act. At the same time, the defence side may also not adopt any delaying tactics delaying the trial of the gangsters act or trial of the base case. Therefore, if the prosecution or the defence delay the trial in gangsters act by filing adjournment applications or file an application that the trial in base case be concluded first, it will create procedural impediment. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly held that the proceedings of gangsters act and base case would be decided simultaneously.

11. So far as the applications filed by the applicants bearing no. 40 B is concerned, that has been filed in a bonafide manner, apprising the legal position and since, that application created legal hindrance in the proceedings for that the applicants have tendered their unconditional apology in paragraph 34 of the application, which is accepted.

12. Therefore, without interfering the impugned order dated 21.12.2024, in respect of 'B' to 'G' of the impugned order dated 21.12.2024, I hereby set aside 'A' of the impugned order dated 21.12.2024, whereby, the cost has been imposed against the applicants with the further direction that such may be recovered from the salary of the present applicants and the stricture issued against the applicants in the impugned order are hereby expunged.

13. Before parting with, the present applicants are issued caution for future that they shall not file any application which may directly or indirectly create any legal hindrance in the legal proceeding, and if any legal information is required to be supplied to the court concerned, such application should be filed at the earliest.

14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed partly.

15. No order as to cost. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Dr. V.K. Singh, learned Government Advocate with Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Purnendu Chakravarty assisted by Sri Shashank Singh, Ms. Ruby Chaudhary and Ms. Aishwarya Saxena, learned counsels for the private opposite parties.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following relief:- "to quash the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, (M.P/M.L.A Court)/Additional Session Judge-I,. District-Balrampur, on application 40 B filed by Station House Officer, P.S Tulsipur, District- Balrampur, in Special Session Trial No. 85/2022, relating to Case Crime No. 02/2022, Under Section-302, 120 B I.P.C Police Station-Tulsipur, District-Balrampur, on so far as it relates to the imposition of penal cost U/s 309 Cr.PC of Rs. 10000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) on each of petitioners/applicants as well as to expunge the stricture awarded against the petitioner/applicants contained in paragraph no. 23 of the impugned order dated 21.12.2024, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this petition, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the recovery of penal cost of Rs. 10000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) from payable pension of petitioner no. 1 and payable salary of petitioner no. 2 in compliance of the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by Special Judge, (M.P/M.L.A Court)/Additional Session Judge-l, Disrict-Balrampur, on application 40 B filed by Station House Officer, P.S Tulsipur, District- Balrampur, in Special Session Trial No. 85/2022, relating to Case Crime No. 02/2022, Under Section- 302, 120 B I.P.C Police Station-Tulsipur, District-Balrampur, in the interest of justice."

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph no. 34, whereby, unconditional apology has been tendered by the applicants, if this Court feels that the applications so filed by the applicants creates any hindrance in the proceedings of the learned court below.

4. As a matter of fact, the applicants tried to demonstrate the correct legal position before the learned trial court concerned so that while concluding the trial pending before the learned trial court, no legal ambiguity takes place.

5. Attention has been drawn towards the application nos. 40 B and 42 B which has been rejected by the learned trial court, whereby, the legal fact was placed before the trial court that before deciding the base case, the trial in gangsters act may be decided first. The aforesaid legal submission of the applicants is based on Section 12 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as well as Rule 57 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Besides, there is one Government Order bearing no. 4080/6/P- 9-20241842633 dated 24.09.2024, which also provides the same thing. Admittedly, the trial of gangsters act is pending consideration, wherein, the prosecution witnesses are being examined, but the trial of the base case is about to conclude.

6. Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, has drawn attention of this Court towards paragraph 3 of the impugned order, whereby, the learned trial court has considered the contentions/objections of the private opposite parties on those applications referring five relevant judgements of the Apex Court by submitting that for the subject matter in question, the consideration of the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court would be necessary to arrive on the appropriate conclusion. The relevant paragraph of some of those judgements have been referred in the impugned order. The learned trial court in paragraph 16 of the impugned order has rightly observed that the creation of Special Court for trial of case in which MPs/MLAs are accused is commitment of fair trial and speedy trial of such cases. Even though such accused are not under trial prisoners. In paragraph 18 of the impugned judgement, the learned trial court has considered sections of the gangsters act and in the light of the aforesaid sections, the learned trial court has aptly commented on the applications being filed by the applicants.

7. Sri Chakravarty has further submitted that from paragraph 20 to 23 of the impugned judgement, the learned trial court has considered a peculiar circumstance to the effect that if the trial in the base case is not concluded for the reason that the trial under gangsters act is yet to conclude, the accused persons would remain in judicial custody in anticipation to conclude the trial, whereas, the intention of the legislature in MPs/MLAs cases is that the trial should be concluded with expedition. The application which has been filed by the applicants and DGC Criminal should have been filed earlier in gangster case so that the trial proceedings of gangsters act would have been expedited. The learned trial court has also observed that the aforesaid conduct of the prosecuting agency as well as the State is not only in violation of the intentions of the legislature for creation of Special Court for MPs and MLAs, but also is in utter derogation of the direction being issued by the Apex Court in re:- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3713. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned trial court dated 21.12.2024 is absolutely appropriate order and does not require any interference.

8. On that Shri Amar Singh learned counsel for the applicants has stated that since the learned trial court has already rejected those application nos. 40 B and 42 B and the present applicants are not aggrieved from such order to the extent those applications have been rejected, but the present applicants are only aggrieved from the remaining portion of the order, whereby, a cost of ?10,000/- has been imposed against the present applicants with the further direction that such amount shall be recovered from the salary of the applicants and the stricture so levelled against the present applicants by this order. Shri Amar Singh has submitted that vide impugned order dated 21.12.2024, the learned trial court has already held that all the base cases shall be decided by this Court along with the case under gangsters act, so that contrary findings may be avoided in these cases and on such observation, the the purpose of filing application has been satisfied.

9. On the first date of admission Sri Chakravarty has placed reliance on one order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the same court, wherein, one fact has been indicated by the learned trial court that in the proceedings of gangsters act, the adjournment applications have been filed and it appears that the prosecution is not trying to expedite the trial in gangsters act. The copy of the aforesaid order is taken on record.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record it emerges that, since, the present applicants have prayed a limited prayer only to the extent that cost so imposed against them, the further order that such cost would be recoverable from the salary of the applicants and the stricture of the order may be set aside, therefore, I am only dealing that prayer in a limited manner. However, before adverting to the aforesaid prayer, I would like to observe that the findings and observation of the learned trial court by the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 are absolutely appropriate and valid and the anxiety and concern which has been shown by the learned trial court is absolutely correct. Since, the trial in gangsters act and in the base case are pending consideration before the same court and it is a pious duty of the prosecuting agency as well as the State to try its level best to assist the court properly so that the trial in gangsters act be concluded at the earliest in the light of Section 12 and Rule 57 of the Act. At the same time, the defence side may also not adopt any delaying tactics delaying the trial of the gangsters act or trial of the base case. Therefore, if the prosecution or the defence delay the trial in gangsters act by filing adjournment applications or file an application that the trial in base case be concluded first, it will create procedural impediment. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly held that the proceedings of gangsters act and base case would be decided simultaneously.

11. So far as the applications filed by the applicants bearing no. 40 B is concerned, that has been filed in a bonafide manner, apprising the legal position and since, that application created legal hindrance in the proceedings for that the applicants have tendered their unconditional apology in paragraph 34 of the application, which is accepted.

12. Therefore, without interfering the impugned order dated 21.12.2024, in respect of 'B' to 'G' of the impugned order dated 21.12.2024, I hereby set aside 'A' of the impugned order dated 21.12.2024, whereby, the cost has been imposed against the applicants with the further direction that such may be recovered from the salary of the present applicants and the stricture issued against the applicants in the impugned order are hereby expunged.

13. Before parting with, the present applicants are issued caution for future that they shall not file any application which may directly or indirectly create any legal hindrance in the legal proceeding, and if any legal information is required to be supplied to the court concerned, such application should be filed at the earliest.

14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed partly.

15. No order as to cost. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Anurag ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench