SHIV PRATAP SINGH ALIAS CHINU v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
2026 INSC 894 · Criminal Appeal No.3979 of 2026 (with Criminal Appeal No.3980 of 2026)
Coram: J. B. Pardiwala; K. Vinod Chandran
No. Section 2(b) is merely a definition clause; the activities in clauses (i) to (xxv) are offences under the Indian Penal Code and other penal laws independently of the Act, and the Act itself creates no offence, making it stillborn — there can be no punishment without an offence in law under the maxim nulla poena sine lege.
Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — Section 2(b) — Definition clause — No offence created — Constitution of India — Article 20(1) — Nulla poena sine lege — Section 23 — Delegated legislation — Gang Chart —
U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986 — Section 2(b) — Definition of 'gang' — No offence created —
Held: Section 2(b) of the U.P. Gangsters Act is merely a definition clause; the activities in clauses (i) to (xxv) are already offences under other penal laws, and the Act itself creates no distinct offence, rendering it stillborn. (¶38, 39, 58)
Constitution of India — Article 20(1) — Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege —
Held further: Article 20(1) embodies nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege: no person may be punished save for violation of a law in force at the time of the act, and a law that creates no offence cannot support punishment. (¶44, 52)
U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986 — Section 23 — Rules — Impermissible delegation —
Held further: The Rules framed under Section 23 cannot determine the status of a 'gangster' or create punishable liability where the parent Act creates none; creation of an offence is a legislative function that cannot be left to subordinate legislation. (¶53, 54)
U.P. Gangsters Act, 1986 — Proceedings quashed — Other penal charges unaffected —
Held further: The Act is stillborn on its existing provisions; the proceedings thereunder are quashed and the appellants released if in custody, without affecting the separate prosecution of the underlying offences under the ordinary penal laws. Appeals allowed. (¶58, 59, 60)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 37What assumes relevance for our purpose in the instant cases is the definition of ‘offence’ as employed in the General Clauses Act which is “an act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force” (sic). Hence, the penal law under which the criminal proceeding is initiated should create an offence and the punishment should also be in accordance with what that law prescribes. Looking at the enactment, which is up for scrutiny, we cannot find any offence having been created. The State seems to proceed on the premise that Section 2 (b) of the Act creates an offence, which is merely a definition clause. As we noticed, the definition refers to a group of persons acting either singly or collectively using violence, threat, display of violence, intimidation or coercion to disturb public order or gain undue temporal worldly, economic, material, pecuniary or other advantage by indulging in the anti-social activities which are referred to in clauses (i) to (xxv) of Section 2(b). We cannot but notice that the offences mentioned therein specifically refers to provisions under penal laws either enacted by the Legislature of the State or the Union Parliament, some of which are; the Indian Penal Code, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, the Public Gambling Act and so on, specifically mentioned in the various sub-clauses. Insofar as sub-clauses (iii), (iv), (vii), (viii),
Paragraph 38The indulgence in any of the activities under clauses (i) to
Paragraph 39The preparation of a Gang Chart for the purpose of punishing a person for involvement in any of the activities specified in the sub-clauses under Section 2 (b), dehors the prosecution and punishment as contemplated under the respective penal laws, would be beyond the power conferred under Section 23 of the U.P. Act. It would result in the same offence being punished under the two laws, one enactment merely presuming the status of the accused; indulging in a criminal act punishable under the other law, to punish again for the very same act. Pertinently, this also enables the investigating agency to delay investigation and filing of charge sheet, extending the pre-trial incarceration to an year. There being no offence created under the U.P. Act, there is no question of a prescription under the U.P. Rules laying down a procedure by which an offence is created, and punishment is guaranteed in accordance with Section 3 of the Act.
Paragraph 43Mahipal Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.11, considering the definitions of ‘continuing unlawful activity’ and ‘organised crime’ under the Maharashtra Act held that, to impose punishment for the offence of organised crime under Section 3 of that Act, the accused is required to be involved in continuing unlawful activity which inter alia provides that more than one charge-sheets are to be filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years, and the court had taken cognizance of such offence. However, what is obviously absent in the U.P. Act is a provision determining the offence as one created under the Act. After defining gang, which includes commission of the offences listed under sub-clauses (i) to (xxv) and defining gangster as a member or leader or organiser of a gang, the punishment is prescribed for a gangster without an offence being created by statute; which makes the penal act, stillborn.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of SHIV PRATAP SINGH ALIAS CHINU v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India