LexDHARMENDRA KIRTHAL versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 823 DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 100 of 2010) AUGUST 02, 2013 [H. L. GOKHALE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] UTTAR PRADESH GANGSTERS AND ANTI SOCIAL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1986: A B c s. 12 - Trial by Special Courts to have precedence - Constitutional validity of - Held: Legislature has incorporated such a provision so that an accused does not face trial in two cases simultaneously and a case before the Special Court does not linger owing to clash of dates in trial - Emphasis is 0 on speedy trial and not denial or it - As the trial under the Act would be in progress, the accused would have the fullest opportunity to defend himself and there cannot be denial of fair trial - Thus, the provision does not frustrate the concept of fair and speedy trial which are the imperative facets of Art. E 21 of the Constitution - The concept of preventive detention is not even remotely attracted to the arrest and detention for F an offence under the Act - There is a distinction b~tween an accused who faces trial in other courts and the accused in the Special Courts under the Act, because such accused is a gangster as defined uls. 2(c) of the Act and is involved in anti- social activities with the object of disturbing public order or of gaining any undue temporal, pecuniary, material or other advantage for himself or any other person - The differentiation between the two is a rational one and cannot be said to be arbitrary - It does not defeat the concept of permissible G classification in the realm of Art. 14 of the Constitution - Constitutional validity of s. 12 of the Act, upheld - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14, 21 and 22(4). 823 H 824 SUPREME COURT R~PORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A s. 19 - Scope of bail - Explained. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The B Court issued notice in regard to validity of s.12 of the Act. It was, inter alia, contended for the petitioner that (1) the provision of giving precedence to the trial before the Special Court under the Act and keeping the trial before other courts in abeyance would frustrate the basic tenet c of Art. 21 of the Constitution i.e. the concept of speedy and fair trial; (2) detention of accused under the Act deprived him of his liberty as the trial in other cases would not be allowed to proceed and accused would be compelled to languish in custody; (3) the detention under D the Act, being virtually in the nature of a preventive detention, would be violative of Art. 22(4) of the Constitution; and (4) that the trial of accused by the Special Court under the Act kaeping the trial in other . courts in abeyance would be violative of the equal treatment before the law as envisaged under Art. 14 of the E Constitution. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. It is the duty of the Court to uphold the F constitutional validity of a statute. Further, there is always the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment. [Para 22] [840-B-C] Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India and Others 1950 SCR 869 = AIR 1951 SC 41; Ram Krishna Dalmia v. G Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others 1959 SCR 279 =AIR 1958 SC 538; State of Bihar and Others v. Bihar Distillery Limited 1996 (9) Suppl. SCR 479 =AIR 1997 SC 1511; Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India 1962 SCR 44 = AIR 1961 SC 954; Pathumma and Others v. State of Kera/a and H Others 1978 (2) SCR 537 = (1978) 2 SCC 1; State of Gujarat DHARMENDRA KIRTHAL v. STATE OF U. P. 825 v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others 2005 (4) A Suppl. SCR 582 = (2005) 8 SCC 534; R. S. Joshi, Sa/es Tax Officer, Gujarat and Others v. Ajit Mills Limited and Another 1978 (1) SCR 338 = (1977) 4 sec 98 - relied on 2.1. Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and 8 Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 clearly mandates that the trial under this Act of any offence by · the Special Court shall have precedence and shall be concluded in preference to the trial of any other case in any other court. The Statement of Objects and Reasons C and Preamble make it quite clear that the Legislature felt the compulsion to make special provisions against gangsterism and anti-social activities. The legislature thought it appropriate to provide that the trial of such ot
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.