MOHD. UMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2011-10-193
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 31,2011

MOHD. UMAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SHRI KANT TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant Mohd. Umar and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
(2.) BY this appeal, the appellant Mohd. Umar has impugned the judgment and order dated 4.8.2011 rendered by Sri Ram Mohan Sharma, the Special Judge, Gangster Act, (Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5), Moradabad in Special Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2007, State vs. Mohd. Umar, whereby the appellant Mohd. Umar has been convicted and sentenced under section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Ante Social Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to undergo rigorous imprisonment of twenty five months and also to pay a fine of Rs. five thousand and in default of payment of fine to under go additional simple imprisonment of one month.
(3.) IT is alleged that the appellant had formed a gang with his associates Rauf and Bhoora and was involved in ante social activities for economic gain. According to the F.I.R., the appellant had a criminal history of following cases: (1) Case crime no. 478/2006 under sections 379, 411 IPC, police station Bhojpur, district Moradabad, (2) Case crime no. 479/2006 under sections 398, 401, 307 IPC, police station Bhojpur, district Moradabad, (3) Case crime no. 480/2006 under section 25 Arms Act, police station Bhojpur, district Moradabad, (4) Case crime no. 244/2000 under sections 395,397 IPC, police station Tanda Rampur, district Moradabad, (5) Case crime no. 671/2006 under section 380 IPC, police station Thakurdwara, district Moradabad, (6) Case crime no. 807/2004 under section 25 Arms Act, police station Bhagatpur, district Moradabad, (7) Case crime no. 91/2005 under section 3/4 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, police station Bhagatpur, district Moradabad, (8) Case crime no. 1082/2005 under sections 379, 411 IPC, police station Bhojpur, district Moradabad. The learned trial court framed the charge under section 3(1) of the Act against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.