State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Vs Shanu and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22961

Court No. - 12

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 6 of 2025

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Respondent :- Shanu And Another Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the appellant and perused the record.

¶7

By means of present Government appeal under Section 18 of the U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986, order dated 23.09.2022, passed by the Special Judge (Gangsters Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Sitapur passed in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 1415 of 2001, under Section 3 of U.P. Gangsters Act and Section 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sitapur, has been assailed.

¶8

As per office report present Government appeal has been filed with delay of 583 days. In the application for condonation of delay it has been stated that certified copy of the impugned order was applied on 05.10.2022, which was received on 01.05.2023 and was forwarded to the office of the District Magistrate and further sent to the State Government on 25.09.2024. It has been further stated that the certified copy got misplaced and therefore another application was made for obtaining certified copy of the impugned order. It is stated that the application was made on 06.10.2022, but bald statement has been made that said application was misplaced and therefore another application was made on which certified copy was received on 01.05.2023.

¶9

It is next stated that the Government had approved filing of the present appeal only on 18.11.2024, which was received in the office of Government Advocate on 23.11.2024.

¶10

From the aforesaid facts this Court finds that there is no proof that initially application for obtaining certified copy was filed. In case such an application was filed, same would have been numbered and duly recorded in the office of the concerned Court. Further, the fact that no details have been stated, clearly indicates that said statement is false and unbelievable.

¶11

There is no cogent explanation for delay in filing the present Government appeal, hence the delay condonation application is rejected.

¶12

In the aforesaid circumstances, let papers of the present appeal alongwith delay condonation application be placed before the Law Rememberancer (LR), who is further directed to take appropriate action against concerned persons for slackness which is evidence from the face of record to the effect that even certified copy was not applied at the earliest and same was done after huge delay.

¶13

It is very well known that there is provision of limitation for filing such appeals and we see no reason as to why the authorities at each stage have not taken prompt steps on their behalf in filing the appeal. The authorities are expected to take due care in taking prompt steps for filing such appeals or obtaining certified copies of orders which are in existence, in time bound manner.

¶14

This Court has also heard learned A.G.A. on the merits of the appeal.

¶15

It has been submitted that first information report was lodged being Case Crime No. 1415 of 2001, under Section 3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act and Section 504, 506 IPC. In the gang chart it was recorded that the respondents who are accused in the aforesaid case crime, the respondent no. 2 is the leader of the said gang and is running the gang for obtaining illegal financial benefits and is indulging in anti social activities. It is due to existence of the aforesaid gang that there is fear and terror in the entire local population and no person is coming forward to give evidence against them.

¶16

Police investigation was carried out in pursuance to the first information report and charge sheet was filed before the trial Court. During trial the investigating officer Shriram Rai was examined as PW-1 who merely stated details of lodging of the first information report and gave vague statement that the accused are acting as gang on day to day basis and threatening the public. One Tribhuvan Nath Vaish, PW-2 was also examined who stated that he is news paper vendor and on 09.01.2001, three persons had stopped him and have stolen Rs.6000/- from him and for which incident report was lodged by him. During examination-in-chief he denied that three persons who had robbed him were the accused and did not support the prosecution case. Sub Inspector Shashi Kant Yadav was examined as PW-3, who was the investigating officer of the other offences which were mentioned in the gang chart, which

¶17

were being investigated by him. His testimony only pertains to the offence which were investigated by him.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid evidence, the trial Court found that the State has been unable to show or prove that the accused were running a gang and while running the gang they had created terror in the entire society. The trial Court on finding that ingredients of Section 3 of the Gangsters Act were not proved due to absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused.

¶19

From the material on record, it is clear that there is absence of any cogent or reliable evidence which can indicate culpability of the accused under Section 3 of the Gangsters Act. It is not the case of the appellant that the impugned order is perverse or that the trial Court did not take into consideration any evidence which was adduced before it.

¶20

In the light of above, for the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed on the ground on unexplained delay as well as being devoid of merits.

¶21

The L.R. shall also re-examine and look into the record, reconsidering the decision of filing the present appeal in absence of any relevant material on the basis of which there would have been any chance of success while filing present appeal.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 A. Verma

¶23

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Shanu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. v. Shanu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Janardan @ Janardan Vishwakarma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Anothers

Momin Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Irfan Ahmad @ Irfan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Tarun Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Singh Vs Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IV Th Lko. and Another

Raj Kumar and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another