- (1.) IN all these matters the respective petitioners have challenged their prosecution for an offence under Sections 2/3 of the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, (in short 'the Act' ). Prayers have been made for quashing the respective F. I. Rs'. and for interim orders protecting them from arrest.
(2.) THE questions, that have been raised, maybe categorised as follow: (1) THEre could not be a prosecution under the Act for a single incident as the Act spoke of "anti-social activities" (in plural ). (2) Prosecution under the Act for past offences was not thought of. (3) If at all the Act created a new concept of an offence, there must be some allegation that any act or omission towards the commission of the offence was there. (4) THE words "indulges in" as used in Section 2 of the Act would only mean that there should be habituality of the acts covered by Section!. In addition to these major points, the individual cases will be dealt with separately. The Act was necessitated with a view to control gangsterism and anti-so cial activities which were on the increase in the State. The Act was preceded by an ordinance and the objects and reasons of the Ordinance were quoted by a Full Bench of this High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U. P and another, 1987 (24) ACC164 at para 22. We may again quote the object and reasons behind the instant enactment: "gangsterism and anti-social activities were on the increase in the State posing threat to lives and properties of the citizens. The existing measures were not found effective enough to cope with this new menace. With a view to break the gangs by punishing the gangsters and to nip in the bud their conspiratorial designs it was considered necessary to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with gangsters and anti-social activities in the State. "since the State Legislature was not in session and immediate legislative action in the matter was necessary, the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Preven tion) Ordinance, 1986 (U. P. Ordinance No. 4 of the 1986) was promulgated by the Governor on January 15; 1986, after obtaining prior instruc tions of the President. "the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Bill, 1986 is ac cordingly introduced with certain necessary modifications to replace the aforesaid Or dinance. "
(3.) IN that paragraph of the judgment itself the Preamble ol the Act was also quoted, as below: "an Act to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with gangsters and anti-social activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". In the case of Ashok Kumar Dixit (supra) the constitutional validity of dif ferent provisions of the Act were discussed threadbare and the Full Bench was of the view that the Act was not ultra vires the Constitution and it was within the legisla tive competence of the State Legislature to enact the U. P. Gangsters and Anti-So cial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. We must, therefore, start with the backdrop of this decision in our mind to see if the objections now raised by the petitioners are sustainable.;