Allahabad High Court Dismisses Appeal in Gangster Act Case, Upholds State's Exclusive Right to Prosecute

Court rules that individual informants cannot be considered victims in cases under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

In a pivotal judgment, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Dhananjay Singh, challenging the acquittal of several accused under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The court clarified that offences under this Act are considered offences against the State and society, not against individual victims, thereby barring individuals from filing appeals as victims in such cases.

Presiding over the case, Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla upheld the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi, which had acquitted the accused, including Sanjay Singh, under Section 3(1) of the Gangster Act. The court emphasized that the Act is a legislative tool designed to combat gang-related and anti-social activities, which threaten public order and safety.

The appellant, Dhananjay Singh, argued that as an injured informant in the base case related to the gang chart, he qualified as a victim under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. However, the court, citing Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 2(1)(y) of the B.N.S.S., delineated the definition of a victim as someone suffering loss or injury due to an accused's act or omission. Justice Shukla distinguished between offences affecting individuals directly and those against the State, asserting that the latter category does not confer victim status upon individual informants for appeal purposes.

The judgment extensively referenced precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu and Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, which clarified the scope of victim rights under the Cr.P.C. The court noted that while these rulings expanded the victim's participatory rights in certain contexts, they did not apply to cases under the Gangster Act.

Highlighting the legislative intent, the court reiterated that the U.P. Gangster Act is crafted to empower the State to initiate and prosecute cases, thereby excluding private individuals from lodging FIRs or pursuing appeals in such matters. The court warned that allowing individual appeals in cases meant for State prosecution could lead to procedural chaos and undermine the Act's purpose.

In conclusion, the court ruled that Dhananjay Singh, despite being an informant in a related case, does not fall within the legal definition of a victim under the relevant provisions, and thus, his appeal was deemed not maintainable.

Bottom Line:

Under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, an individual, even if aggrieved in a base case, does not qualify as a 'victim' under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C./2(1)(y) B.N.S.S. to file an appeal against acquittal, as offences under this Act are considered offences against the State and society, not against an individual.

Statutory provision(s): U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Section 3(1); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.), Section 413; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), Section 2(wa).

Dhananjay Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2819450