Controlling Crime By Making Law Is The Most Important Duty Of Legislature In Democratic Polity: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court today observed that controlling crime by making appropriate legislation is the most important duty of the legislature in a democratic polity and for this reason, it is necessary to scuttle serious threats to the safety of the citizens.Referring to the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the Bench of Justice Surya Prakash...
The Allahabad High Court today observed that controlling crime by making appropriate legislation is the most important duty of the legislature in a democratic polity and for this reason, it is necessary to scuttle serious threats to the safety of the citizens.
Referring to the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Shamim Ahmed noted that the purpose of this law is to curb such crimes, which have become epidemic in society.
"The legislature has felt that there should be curtailment of the activities of the gangsters and, accordingly, provided for stern delineation with such activities to establish stability in society where citizens can live in peace and enjoy a secured life," added the Court.
Importantly, the Court was dealing with 8 Writ Pleas in which a common question arose as to whether on a solitary criminal case registered against the petitioners, a case under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 can be registered?
Referring to the recent ruling of the Allahabad High Court, in which it has been led that the lodging of a first information report under the UP Gangsters Act even on the basis of involvement of a person in a single case, is valid and permissible, the Court in the instant matter held thus:
"Thus, where a group of persons act either singly or collectively, by violence, or threat or show of violence, or intimidation, or coercion, or otherwise with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage of himself or any other person, indulge in anti-social activities as described in sub-clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b), they shall be a 'Gang' as defined in Section 2(b) and thus, a 'gangster' under Section 2 who shall be liable for punishment under Section 3 of the Act, 1986."
Further, the Court also opined that the Act of 1986, in actuality, responded to the actual feelings and requirements of the collective and that rule of law does not permit anti-social acts that lead to a disorderly society.
Therefore, the Court added, it is the duty of the courts to uphold the dignity of personal liberty and to see if an individual crosses the limit carved out by law, he needs to be dealt with appropriately, inasmuch as no individual has any right to hazard others' liberty.
Consequently, noting that the Scheme of the 1986 Act nowhere prohibits lodging of first information report under the Act on the basis of a single case, the Court, in categorical terms held thus:
"a first information report under Section 2/3 of the Act, 1986, can be registered against a person even if only one criminal case is registered against him, and on the ground of registration of merely one criminal case, an FIR registered under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, cannot be quashed"
Case title - Arjun v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others along with connected matters
Read Order