Non-Application Of Mind Defeats Rule Of Law | Approvals Granted Mechanically | Justice Is Not Achieved Through Procedural Shortcuts : Allahabad High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Allahabad Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar disposed of two applications challenging proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Court quashed the basis for invoking the Act after a re-investigation exonerated all accused and a closure report was submitted. Citing procedural lapses and inadequate satisfaction by competent authorities, the Court held that approvals were granted in a mechanical manner and without compliance with statutory rules. The Court also directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Director General of Police, and Director General (Prosecution) to issue consolidated circulars, training protocols, and compliance checklists to ensure procedural rigor. Directions were also issued for departmental inquiries against investigating officers and circulation of the order to judicial officers for strict enforcement of rule-based accountability.
The applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged the entire proceedings arising from Case Crime No. 161 of 2022, registered under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 at Police Station Karari, District Kaushambi. The proceedings also included the cognizance order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-1st, Kaushambi.
According to the prosecution, the gang in question was allegedly led by Ajay Kumar Saroj, a resident of Goraju, District Kaushambi, with co-members named as Rahul, Vinay Kumar Gupta, and Rajaram Kesharwani. The gang was accused of being involved in organized illegal mining activities, using fake Ravanas (transportation slips), thereby causing significant revenue loss to the government. It was stated that these activities led to public fear, disrupting law and order, and were therefore covered under Section 2B(1) of the Gangsters Act.
An FIR was registered based on the gang-chart approved by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police. A charge sheet was subsequently filed, and the applicants were summoned through an order dated 24.01.2024.
The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated based on a solitary case and alleged that the real perpetrators were shielded by local police and mining authorities. It was argued that the gang leader and co-accused were financially weak individuals lacking any significant movable or immovable assets. The applicants asserted that the authorities had approved the gang chart without proper application of mind or verification of the materials submitted by the Nodal Officer.
The State, through the Additional Advocate General, defended the invocation of the Gangsters Act, asserting that the gang-chart was approved after thorough consideration by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police based on the records and evidence presented.
To ascertain the veracity of these claims, the Court issued directions on 03.07.2024. These included an order to the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi to submit the complete material presented for approval of the gang chart, a list of other cases where the Gangsters Act had been invoked based on a single FIR, and a list of accused with more than five criminal cases registered in the district.
Additionally, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Manjhanpur was instructed to file a detailed report on the financial and property status of the accused, including ancestral and self-acquired assets, bank statements for the last three years, and any supporting documents.
In compliance, an affidavit dated 25.07.2024 was submitted by the SDM, Manjhanpur, which revealed that the gang leader Ajay Kumar Saroj was a laborer with no assets. Co-accused Rahul was similarly situated and worked in Pune. Vinay Kumar Gupta owned a bike and lived in a joint family house, while Rajaram Kesharwani owned two tractors and a bike. The affidavit noted that the accused had minimal bank transactions, inconsistent with the alleged economic benefits of illegal mining.
The Court summoned the then District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi, to explain the basis of their approvals. During video conferencing, their justifications were found unsatisfactory. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) acknowledged the lack of compliance with the Gangsters Act and suggested the need for comprehensive training of officers on the Act and its Rules, 2021.
The Court ordered a re-investigation and directed the Home Department to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the Station House Officer, Karari Police Station, and the Nodal Officer involved in the initial investigation. Following the inquiry, a report dated 10.12.2024 by the Joint Secretary (Home) found the SHO negligent and recommended departmental proceedings. The Nodal Officer was cautioned to exercise diligence in future investigations.
On 11.12.2024, a compliance affidavit stated that all accused were exonerated in the re-investigation and a closure report dated 09.12.2024 was filed before the court. The Court, finding the grievances resolved, proceeded to dispose of the applications.
The Court recorded its dissatisfaction with the routine approval of gang charts and stated: “This Court repeatedly encounters with cases wherein non-application of mind by the District Magistrates/Commissioners of Police/Senior Superintendents of Police/Superintendents of Police has been observed that the approvals are granted mechanically in a routine manner in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 1968 and Rules, 2021.”
It noted that affidavits filed by revenue authorities contradicted the gang-chart allegations:
“The account statements of all the accused, by and large, show the bare minimum transactions in contrast to the allegations made in the gang-chart.”
On the need for training and systemic reform, the Court stated: “A comprehensive training schedule needs to be scheduled to sensitize the officers about the legal and procedural requirements mandated under the Gangsters Act, 1986 and Rules framed thereunder in the year 2021.”
The Court stressed the impact of procedural irregularities: “This non-compliance has resulted, on one hand, in a denial of justice to the victim, and on the other, has provided the police with a tool to perpetrate atrocities against resourceless, innocent, and vulnerable individuals for ulterior motives.”
It further stated: “More often than not, such misuse ends up benefiting the actual gangsters, who are shielded rather than brought to justice.”
The Court reviewed the circular issued by the Secretary (Home) dated 02.12.2024, which laid out 34 procedural safeguards and compliance points for implementing the Gangsters Act. These included guidelines on proper documentation, independent approval procedures, prohibition on rubber stamp approvals, mandatory re-examinations of gang charts, and strict adherence to rules related to charge sheet preparation and property attachment.
Regarding duplication of compliance tools, the Court observed: “The existence of two separate checklists may lead to confusion among Investigating Officers and Prosecution Officers at the district level.”
It directed harmonization of checklists and consolidation of compliance guidelines. The Court stressed that all stakeholders must ensure rule-bound investigation and approval under the Act.
The Court ordered that the entire proceedings, including the cognizance order, be disposed of in light of the closure report exonerating the applicants. It further directed a series of institutional and procedural reforms.
The Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to prepare a single unified checklist from the two existing ones issued by the Home Department and the Directorate of Prosecution within 30 days and ensure its strict adherence by investigating officers during investigation.
The Director General of Police was instructed to compile a compendium containing the guidelines of the Home Department issued pursuant to the Gorakh Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. case, Circular No. 06/2018 dated 19.02.2018, the unified checklist, and all other instructions issued under this order.
The Court mandated that charge sheets must be forwarded to the Prosecution Officer through the Circle Officer before submission. The Prosecution Officer shall evaluate the evidence and return the case file with recommendations. Only after the issues are addressed shall the final report be submitted to court.
The Director General (Prosecution) was directed to issue time-bound guidelines to Prosecution Officers for reviewing charge sheets. Charge sheets must be accompanied by a paginated index with specific details, including date-wise investigation notes and documentation under Section 94 BNSS, 2023.
Each Investigating Officer must endorse in the case diary that all guidelines and checklists have been complied with. A copy of this endorsement must accompany the report submitted under Section 193 BNSS, 2023.
In case of non-compliance with these directives, the Court instructed all Judicial Officers to immediately report such violations to the Commissioner of Police or Senior Superintendent of Police and initiate departmental proceedings against the erring officer.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to transmit a copy of the order to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Director General of Police, and Director General (Prosecution). A copy was also directed to be circulated among all Judicial Officers in Uttar Pradesh.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Arvind Kumar Mishra and Shri Devendra Mishra, Advocates Shri Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Vibhav Anand Singh, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Vinay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another & Connected Matters
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:79679
Case Number: Application U/S 482 Nos. 20422 and 32108 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
[Read/Download order]
