ANIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIT Kumar, the convict has preferred this jail appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 1.7.2010 rendered by Special Judge, Gangsters Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial No. 17A/2004. That trial pertains to Crime No. 182/2003, PS Gangnahar, Roorkee. The appellant was convicted for the offence of Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act and sentenced to 8 years rigorous imprisonment with rupees ten thousand fine. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo two years imprisonment. Learned Judge directed the adjustment of the period of detention which he had undergone in the gaol eversince his detention in the crime since 18.6.2004. This way the convict has already undergone 9 years, 9 months and 30 days till date in the prison. Even if the sentence of two years which was asked to undergo in default of fine is added in 8 years imprisonment, then he has undergone 10 years imprisonment short of 2 and half months by now.

(2.) NONETHELESS , learned Amicus Curiae has placed reliance on a precedent of this Court , Anand Singh Bisht and Others v. State of Uttarakhand,2012 1 NCC 272. In that case, the Court interpreted the word activities used while defining the word Gangster in Section 2(c)of the said Act. In that case, it was held that in order to bring in the ambit of Gangster, a person should have found indulged not in one activity but in activities which should be read in the meaning of violence, 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, or indulged in any anti -social activities as envisaged by Section 2(b) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti -Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

(3.) THE emphasis of the learned Amicus Curiae is that appellant Anit Kumar though was found guilty for the offence of Section 302 IPC and the death penalty was converted to the life term in Crime No. 130/2003, PS Gangnahar, Roorkee, but his trial under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, though for the separate Crime No. 132/2003 of the same police station, cannot be treated as a separate offence because both the offences were interconnected to each other. So, these were tried by the Trial Court together as well as the appeal against the conviction in both the crimes were heard by this High Court collectively.