State Of Up vs. Ramesh Khangar S/O Late Ramme Khangar And Another

Held

The Court held that no material was indicated to exist that would lead to an inference of perversity or patent error in the order of the learned court below. The Court found that the lower court had correctly concluded that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving that the accused persons had indulged in any gangster activity. The reasoning of the lower court, that acquittal in two out of three cases and a minor conviction in the third case did not establish gangster activity, was accepted. Consequently, the Court found no good ground to condone the delay of 174 days or to entertain the appeal on merits. Both the condonation of delay and the appeal were dismissed.

Facts

The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a criminal appeal, with a delay of 174 days, against an acquittal order dated May 16, 2022. The acquittal was granted by the Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Jhansi, in Session Case (GST) No. 259 of 2003. The case involved charges under Section 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, stemming from Case Crime No. 713 of 2003. The respondents, Ramesh Khangar and another, were acquitted by the lower court. The lower court's reasoning was that the accused were acquitted in two of the three cases listed in the gang chart, and the conviction in the third case, with a sentence of up to two years and six months, did not indicate gangster activity. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to present evidence of indulgence in activities defined as offenses under the Gangster Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the acquittal order dated May 16, 2022, passed by the Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Jhansi, in Session Case (GST) No. 259 of 2003, is perverse or contains a patent error, warranting interference by this Court under Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986? The State-appellant argued that the lower court erred in its acquittal, implying that the evidence presented should have led to a conviction. The State contended that the acquittal order was not based on a proper appreciation of the facts and law. The respondent did not present any arguments as no material was indicated to exist that would lead to an inference of perversity or patent error in the lower court's order. The State also sought condonation of the 174-day delay in filing the appeal.