Read Time: 08 minutes

A person against whom a single FIR/charge sheet is filed for any of the anti-social activities mentioned in section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 can be prosecuted under the Gangsters Act and a single crime committed by a ‘Gangster’ is sufficient to apply the Gangsters Act on such members of a ‘Gang’, held the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

On a fair reading of the definitions of ‘Gang’ and ‘Gangster’ under the Gangsters Act, 1986, a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna it can be seen that a ‘Gang’ is a group of one or more persons who commit/s the crimes mentioned in 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 the ‘Gang’. The definition clause does not engulf plurality of offence before the Gangsters Act is invoked", held the Top Court.

A group of persons may act collectively or anyone of the members of the group may also act singly, with the object of disturbing public order indulging in anti-social activities mentioned in Section 2(b) of the Gangsters Act, who can be termed as ‘Gangster’, said the division bench.

An FIR was filed against Shraddha Gupta, under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, 1986, for having conspired to kill Kumari Sadhna Sharma, In-charge, DGC(Crl.) in the Court of the District Judge, Badaun, when she had gone to the Court on her scooty to pursue the cases on behalf of the Government.

In the present case, the main accused P.C. Sharma, the  gang leader who was the mastermind had hatched a criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused including Shraddha to commit the murder of the deceased Sadhna Sharma for a pecuniary benefit as there was a property dispute going on since long between the family members.

Gupta submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the case; she was not named in the FIR; in the FIR, no role had been assigned to her and her name surfaced in further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

She further submitted that she was neither a gang leader nor a member of the gang being a household lady and that solely on the basis of the single FIR/charge sheet, she cannot be charged for the offences under the provisions of the Gangsters Act.

Allahabad High Court in the impugned judgement refused to quash the criminal proceedings under Sections 2/3 of the Gangsters Act.

The top court noted that 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.

Considering the provisions under the Gangsters Act, 1986 it was found that if 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, 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.

Since the other co-accused were already charge sheeted for offence under Gangsters Act, therefore SHraddha and the other two co-accused being members of the ‘Gang’ were also required to be prosecuted for the offences under the Gangsters Act also like other co-accused, held the Top Court while upholding the impugned judgment.

Case Title: Shraddha Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others