Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal arising from a High Court revisional order that directed a murder sessions trial to be kept in abeyance while a Gangsters Act trial against the same accused was expedited. The appellant was the brother of the deceased and the de facto complainant who lodged an FIR on 30.09.2023 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 427 IPC against nine accused persons, including the first respondent, alleging that the deceased was mercilessly assaulted and beaten to death. After investigation, chargesheets were filed against seven accused in October 2023; cognizance was taken on 27.11.2023 and the case was committed on 08.12.2023, registered as Session Trial No. 0934 of 2023. On 12.11.2023, the SHO prepared a report stating that the accused had committed the offence as part of a constituted gang, leading to a Gang Chart and an FIR No. 0001 of 2024 under Section 2(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 on 01.01.2024. A Single Judge of the High Court, while disposing of a bail application on 20.02.2024, directed day-to-day hearing in the murder trial to conclude within one year. The accused filed an application on 18.01.2025 to keep the murder trial in abeyance, contending that the Gangsters Act trial should have precedence under Section 12. The Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the application on 03.03.2025, relying on Dharmendra Kirthal v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013) 8 SCC 368, and noting that prosecution evidence had been completed and Section 313 CrPC statements were scheduled, while only a chargesheet had been filed in the Gangsters case. On revision, the High Court allowed it on 25.08.2025, directing the murder trial to be kept in abeyance and the Gangsters trial to be expedited. The appellant challenged this. The Supreme Court, on 13.04.2026, stayed the High Court order and directed the trial court to proceed and dispose of the murder trial within two months; the trial court subsequently concluded the trial and convicted all accused under Section 302 IPC and other sections. The legal issue was whether Section 12 of the Gangsters Act mandated abeyance of other trials. The court analysed Section 12 and precedents in Dharmendra Kirthal and Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi, holding that Section 12 only grants precedence to avoid clash of dates and ensure speedy Gangsters trial, not to freeze other proceedings; it must be read harmoniously with Section 309 CrPC and Article 21. The court's reasoning indicated that the High Court erred in ordering abeyance, especially because the murder trial was at an advanced stage while the Gangsters trial had not begun. The final operative order was not set out in the extracted portion, but the court had granted leave, stayed the High Court order, and recorded the conviction in the murder trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Trial Precedence under Gangsters Act - Section 12 of Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - The High Court directed abeyance of a murder sessions trial solely because a Gangsters Act case was pending against the same accused; the Supreme Court held that Section 12 confers precedence only to avoid clash of dates and ensure speedy Gangsters trial, not to freeze other proceedings; where prosecution evidence was completed and Section 313 CrPC statements were scheduled while the Gangsters case had only a chargesheet, abeyance was unjustified (Paras 16-18). B) Criminal Procedure - Speedy Trial and Harmonious Construction - Section 309 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 12 Gangsters Act and Article 21 of Constitution - The court emphasised that Section 12 cannot be read literally to stall other trials; it must be harmonised with Section 309 CrPC which mandates day-to-day trial once examination of witnesses has begun; keeping other trial in abeyance would frustrate fair and speedy trial under Article 21 and is not the legislative intent (Paras 17-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in directing that Session Trial No. 934 of 2023 be kept in abeyance and that Gangsters Session Trial No. 01 of 2024 be expedited in view of Section 12 of the U.P. Gangsters Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court granted leave, stayed the High Court order, directed the trial court to proceed and dispose of Session Trial No. 934 of 2023 within two months, and noted that the trial was concluded with conviction of all accused under Section 302 IPC and other sections. The court's analysis indicated that the High Court erred in applying Section 12 Gangsters Act, but the final operative order in the extracted portion was not set out.
Law Points
- Section 12 of U.P. Gangsters Act grants precedence only to avoid clash of dates and ensure speedy trial under that Act
- not to freeze other cases
- Section 12 must be read with Section 309 CrPC requiring day-to-day trial
- Article 21 mandates fair and speedy trial
- Section 8(1) Gangsters Act allows Special Court to try other offences
- Section 313 CrPC statements and completed prosecution evidence cannot be stalled absent date clash
