Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18932 Court No. - 12 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 4 of 2025 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Respondent :- Rakesh Verma And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. (Order on Application for condonation of delay) 1. Heard learned A.G.A. for the appellant. 2. In view of the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing present appeal, the application is allowed. 3. Accordingly, the delay in filing present appeal is condoned. (Order on Appeal) 1. Heard learned Government Advocate for the appellant. 2. Present Government Appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986. 3. It has been submitted by learned A.G.A. for the appellant that a F.I.R. was registered against the accused in Case Crime No. 317/2009, 318/2009, 319/2009 and 320/2009 under Section 3(1) of Uttar Pradesh Control of Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986. The investigation was concluded and a charge-sheet was filed in the trial court. 4. It is stated that on 14.03.2019 the Satyanarayan Gupta, Inspector of Police along with Constable Shyam Kishun, constable Subhash Singh, Driver Constable Ramakant Singh while on patrol duty obtained knowledge that Rakesh Verma, Sanjay Verma and Balram Verma are members of a gang whose leader is Rakesh Verma and he is accused in Case Crime No. 148/2009 under Section 392, 411, 506 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 162/2009, under Section 307 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Amendment , Case Crime No. 1375/2008 under Section 380 I.P.C., Case Crime No. 44/2009 under Section 302 I.P.C. and the gang is working for personal and physical benefits out of proceeds of the crime. The same offence were also indicated in the gang chart. Cognizance of the said offence was taken pursuant to the filing of the chargesheet. To bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined P.W. 1-Narsingh Jaiswal, P.W. 2, Sub-Inspector Pannalal Yadav, P.W. 3-Subhash Soni and P.W.-4-retired Inspector Komal Nath Singh. 5. P.W. 1- Narsingh Jaiswal was examined and he had stated that he along with his father had owned a jewellery store and on 06.01.2009 three unidentified persons have threatened them and asked them to handover the jewellery in his possession. To which he replied that entire jewellery is with his father who had left much earlier and they left after taking away his mobile phone and accordingly a F.I.R. was lodged by him against anonymous persons. During his cross-examination, he has clearly stated that he could not identify any of the persons against whom he has registered the F.I.R. and no exercise for identification was carried out by the police also. 6. P.W.2-Pannalal Yadav, Sub-Inspector who was the Investigation Officer had stated in his cross examination that he could not find any other material against the accused about their criminal antecedents. He had further conceded the fact that during the course of investigation, he has examined number of persons but could not gathered any material with regard to illegal activities of the accused persons. He had further sought to acquire evidence with regard to assets accumulated out of proceeds of crime but in this regard also he could not get any material or evidence and the only material he has was the criminal antecedents of the accused persons. 7. P.W.-3, Subhash Soni was also examined who also stated that he owns a jewellery shop and on 07.02.2009 at around 06.00 p.m. when he was closed the shop and was returning home then three persons have threatened him showing a country-made pistol and they had looted his bag containing silver ornaments. He has stated that in this regard a F.I.R. was registered by him in Case Crime No. 44/2009 under Section 392 and 411 I.P.C. During cross examination, he had admitted that he had not named any individual in his first information report and he had not taken the name of the accused in the investigation pursuant to the said F.I.R. registered by him. 8. Lastly P.W.-4-Komal Nath Singh, retired Sub-Inspector was also examined where he stated that during the period he was posted at P.S. Akbarpur, criminal cases were registered against the accused and during investigation, he had taken the accused in custody and also filed charge-sheet in the said cases. 9. Considering the aforesaid material and evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial court concluded that the prosecution has totally failed in producing any cogent evidence with regard to the fact that accused has constituted any gang or they had amassed any financial or personal benefits out of proceeds of the crime after constituting the said gang. It was considered that no material or evidence was available on record to indicate that offence under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 has been committed by the accused. 10. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and deserves interference. 11. This Court has perused the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, Gangster Act, Ambedkar Nagar as well as considered the arguments of learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 12. To bring home the charges leveled against the accused, it was the duty of the prosecution to have produced cogent evidence and material indicating firstly that all the accused were part of a gang and while operating as a gang they had amassed financial and other benefits and created such a terror in the society for which they could be punished under the relevant provisions of Uttar Pradesh Control of Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986. 13. As discussed above, only four prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The most relevant witness was the Investigating Officer himself who fairly conceded that during his investigation, he could not gather any material indicating that the accused were part of a gang or any other criminal antecedents of the accused for the purposes they could be punished under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986. The evidence of the other accused, namely, P.W. -1 and P.W.-3 who were jewellers and had merely registered a first information report against anonymous persons and accordingly could not link the said offence to the accused and consequently the testimony were of no relevance. 14. In light of the above and specially considering that there was no material adduced by the prosecution, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 22.10.2024 acquitting the accused. 15. For the reasons, above, this Court does not find any need for interference in the impugned order, accordingly, the appeal being bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench