2026 INSC 866 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO . ___ __OF 2026

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 2815/2026)

Keshvendra Singh …….Appellant(s)

Versus

Shankar Singh And Anr. ……. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

K. V. Viswanathan, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) The present appeal calls in question the correctness of

the order dated 25.08.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 1669 of

2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. By

the said order, the High Court, while setting aside the order of

the Sessions Court dated 03.03.2025, held as under: -

“17. …. The Sessions Trial No.0934 of 2023 (State of U.P.

vs.. Pancham Singh and others) which is running

concurrently before the Court of Sessions Judge, Lalitpur,

shall be kept in abeyance and the learned Special Judge

is directed to expedite the proceedings of Gangster

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2024 to satisfy the intent of

mandatory provisions contained in Section 12 of the

Gangsters Act.”

2

3) We must record, at the outset, that on 13.04.2026, while

staying the order of the High Court, we directed the Trial

Court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the same within

two months and report compliance. We have been informed

that the Sessions Court has concluded the trial in Session Trial

No. 934 of 2023 and convicted all the accused in the said case

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

‘the IPC’) apart from other Sections. A Compliance Report has

also been received from the Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Lalitpur, to the said effect.

BRIEF FACTS: -

4) The appellant, who is the brother of the deceased (one

Raghvendra Singh) lodged an FIR on 30.09.2023 being No.

0342 of 2023 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 427 of

the IPC at Police Station Talbehat, District - Lalitpur, Uttar

Pradesh against 9 (nine) accused persons including the first

respondent herein. The allegation was that Raghavendra

3

Singh was mercilessly assaulted and brutally beaten to death

by the accused persons with lathis, stones and metal rods.

5) After a detailed investigation, in October 2023, charge

sheets were filed against 7 (seven) accused persons in all

under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 302 and 427 of the IPC

before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur. On

27.11.2023, cognizance was taken and on 08.12.2023, the case

was committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Lalitpur, who registered the case as Session Trial No.

0934 of 2023.

6) In the meantime, on 12.11.2023, in relation to the said

crime, a Report was prepared by the Station House Officer

(SHO) to the effect that the accused had committed the said

offence as part of a constituted gang. Accordingly, a Gang

Chart was prepared and forwarded to the higher authorities

on 14.11.2023 and 20.12.2023, respectively.

7) On 01.01.2024, pursuant to the Gang Chart, the SHO,

Talbehat, Lalitpur, lodged an FIR No. 0001 of 2024 under

4

Section 2(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Gangsters Act’) against the said accused persons. When

matters stood thus, on 20.02.2024, a learned Single Judge of

the High Court, while disposing the bail application of one of

the accused, directed to conclude the trial in Session Trial No.

934 of 2023 by proceeding with day-to-day hearing so that the

entire trial could be concluded within a period of one year.

8) On 18.01.2025, 7 (seven) accused persons filed an

application before the Additional District and Sessions Judge

Lalitpur, praying to keep the proceedings in Session Trial No.

934 of 2023 in abeyance on the ground that the very same

accused persons were also accused in the proceedings under

the Gangsters Act and the trial under the Gangsters Act should

have precedence over the trial of any other case against the

accused.

9) The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lalitpur, by

order of 03.03.2025, dismissed the application. The learned

5

Sessions Judge relied on the judgment of this Court in

Dharmendra Kirthal vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2013) 8 SCC 368

and observed that the legislature while enacting Section 12

did not intend to delay the trial proceedings for the cases

under the Gangsters Act and further considering the progress

that the trial has achieved for the offences under the IPC, held

that Section 12 of the Gangsters Act would have no application

and there was no justification for keeping the sessions trial in

abeyance. The operative order of the learned Sessions Judge

reads as under: -

“8. In the present case, after the committal from the Chief

Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Court, the case was registered as

a session trial on December 8, 2023. Subsequently, on

February 26, 2024, charges were framed under sections

147, 302/149, 323/149, 427, and 504 against the accused,

Pancham Singh, and six others. By January 8, 2025, the

prosecution had completed its evidence, and a statement

under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)

was scheduled to be recorded. The date for recording

statement under sec. 313 was fixed for January 17, 2025,

while the current application was submitted only on January

18, 2025.

9. According to the application 70 C, just the charge sheet

has been submitted in the gangster case, and the trial has

(sic.) yet to begin. As a result the trial for ST No. 934/2023 is

already over, while the trial for the gangster case has (sic.)

yet to begin. If this submissions of defence is accepted then

a large number of cases will be thus delayed and frustrated.

6

In present matter, there is no justification for preferring the

gangster case above the session trial case. Based on the

foregoing discussion, it is evident that provisions of Section

12 of the Gangster Act is not applicable in this case. As a

result, Application 70 C, having no legal force, is liable to be

rejected.”

10) Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 1 filed a

Criminal Revision before the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad, contending that the intention of the legislature was

to provide precedence to cases under the Gangsters Act in

comparison to any other case against the same accused. The

High Court, accepting the contention, directed that Session

Trial No. 934 of 2023 shall be kept in abeyance and the learned

Special Judge was directed to expedite the proceedings of

Gangsters Session Trial No. 1 of 2024. It is this order, which is

in challenge before us at the behest of the de facto

complainant.

11) We have heard Mr. Aviral Kashyap, learned counsel for

the appellant, Mr. Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the

respondent No. 1-accused and Mr. Arup Banerjee, learned

counsel for the State.

7

CONTENTIONS : -

12) Learned counsel for the de facto complainant contended

that the High Court has misinterpreted the provisions of

Section 12 of the Gangsters Act. According to the learned

counsel, all that Section 12 mandates is that only in the event

of clash of dates between the two cases, the case under the

Gangsters Act would get priority. It is further submitted on

behalf of the de facto complainant that at the time when the

application was filed for keeping Session Trial No. 934 of 2023

in abeyance, only chargesheet had been submitted under the

Gangsters Act and its trial was yet to begin whereas in Session

Trial No. 934 of 2023, prosecution had completed its evidence

and the statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) of the accused were

scheduled to be recorded.

13) The learned counsel for the State has filed a counter

affidavit copiously referring to the judgment in Dharmendra

Kirthal (supra) and has concluded by stating as follows:

8

“13. …... The contention of the petitioner is that on the basis

of Section 12 of the aforesaid Act, the accused persons are

trying to put the finality of a Trial of a brutal murder case,

which is just round the corner, into some temporary

oblivion. It is very debatable as to whether Section 12 of the

Act can have any flexibility in the facts and circumstances of

the instant case. In this connection it is required to submit

one sentence spoken by Lord Denning that sometimes it is

necessary and essential to mitigate the rigors of law. This

sentence of The Master of Rolls still lingers on, in the Judicial

circuits because it has stood the test of time. That Section 12

of the Act is no more Res Integra but it is required to be

examined as to whether the trial of an alleged atrocious and

brutal day light murder will get mired / stalled because of

strict and rigid provision of Section 12 of The Act. Thus

submitted.”

14) Learned counsel for the accused defended the impugned

order.

QUESTION FOR CONSIDERATION: -

15) In this background, the question that arises for

consideration is whether the High Court was justified in

directing that Session Trial No. 934 of 2023, then pending in

the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special

Judge (U.P. Dacoity A.A.), Lalitpur, was to be kept in abeyance

and in further directing that the proceedings under the

Gangsters Act in the Session Trial No. 01/2024 be expedited,

9

in view of the mandatory provision of Section 12 of the

Gangsters Act?

ANALYSIS AND REASONING: -

OBJECT OF SECTION 12 - NOT TO FREEZE OTHER

PROCEEDINGS

16) Section 12 of the Gangsters Act reads as under:-

“Trial by Special Courts to have precedence.

S. 12. The trial under this Act of any offence by Special

Court shall have precedence over the trial of any other

case against the accused in any other court (not being a

Special Court) and shall be concluded in preference to the

trial of such other case and accordingly the trial of such

other case shall remain in abeyance.”

17) In Dharmendra Kirthal (supra), this Court, interpreting

Section 12 of the Gangsters Act, held as under:-

“32. ….. The provision 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 in such other courts to achieve the said purpose. The

legislature thought it appropriate to provide that the trial of

such other case shall remain in abeyance. It is apt to note

here that “any other case” against the accused in “any

other court” does not include the Special Court. The

emphasis is on speedy trial and not denial of it. The

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. It is also worthy to note that the

Special Court has been conferred jurisdiction under sub-

section (1) of Section 8 of the Act to try any other offences

with which the accused may, under any other law for the

10

time being in force, have been charged and proceeded at

the same trial.

36. On a careful scrutiny of the provision, it is quite vivid

that the trial is not hampered as the trial in other courts is

to remain in abeyance by the legislative command. Thus,

the question of procrastination of trial does not arise. 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, in our considered

opinion, the aforesaid provision does not frustrate the

concept of fair and speedy trial which are the imperative

facets of Article 21 of the Constitution.”

(Emphasis supplied)

18) In Mobin Iftikhar Zaidi vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2011

SCC OnLine All 4160, a learned Single Judge, interpreting

Section 12 of the Gangsters Act, held as under:-

“6. A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals the

legislative intent behind the said provision and its object

was that the trial under the Gangsters Act should be given

preference and the same should not get unduly delayed

because of pendency of other cases in other courts The

legislative intention was not that the proceedings of other

offences must be kept in abeyance till conclusion of trial

under the Gangsters Act. Its intent was that the dates fixed

in the other trials and in the case under the Gangsters Act

should not clash together, in order to ensure that the trial

under the Gangsters Act does not get unduly delayed or

hampered with and reaches to its logical conclusion at the

earliest. It can not be the intention of the legislature that if

a person is required in other cases in crimes of such

henious nature such as murder, dacoity, loot and rape etc,

the trial of those offences should not proceed further till

conclusion of trial under Gangsters Act. In view of the

above, it is clear that the legislative intent is that the trial

11

under the Gangsters Act need be given preference to other

trial.

7. Further more the statutory provision has to be

interpreted in manner which is in consonance with the

legislative intent and also harmonious to other

provisions of law. Section 309 Cr. P.C. provides that if

examination of witness has been started, the Session

trial has to be conducted on day to day basis. and the

said provision has to be read in conjunction with

Section 12 of the Act and if both the provisions are read

together, it will be very clear that the legislative intent

of section 12 of the Act is that trial under the Gangsters

Act, should not be hampered because of the dates fixed

in the other trials and the trial under the Gangsters Act

should be given preference. It cannot be the intention of

the legislature that pendency of trial under Gangsters Act

requires that other sessions trials should be stayed, which

would not only be against the legislature intent but against

public policy. Those cases which are pending against the

accused persons for other offences excepting under the

Gangsters Act, can be fixed and decided on those dates

where the proceedings under the Gangsters Act has not

been fixed. Further more it has to be seen that if the trial

under other offences are to be stayed till the conclusion of

the trial under the Gangsters Act, then it would mean that

no gangster can be convicted on account of his being a

gangster. It does not mean that the criminal activities,

which are the earlier offences of a gangster, should not be

tried expeditiously. Further more it is constitutional

mandate that the trials should be concluded expeditiously

and such interpretation that till Gangster trial is concluded

the trial of other offences should be stayed is not in

consonance with the constitutional mandate. Still again, it

is to be borne in mind that this Court as well as the Hon'ble

Apex Court has repeatedly held that the trial of criminal

cases should be decided expeditiously, and thus, the

12

interpretation that till pendency of trial under the

Gangsters Act, the trial of other criminal offences be

stayed, would be in the teeth of the well settled principle

of law so laid down by this court as well as the Hon'ble Apex

Court.” (Emphasis supplied)

19) In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the purpose

behind Section 12 was not to freeze the other proceedings

against the accused till proceedings under the Gangsters Act

were concluded. The purpose was only to indicate that in the

event of clash of dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters

Act were to get priority.

EXPEDITIOUS CONCLUSION OF TRIAL – MANDATE OF

SECTION 346 BNSS

20) Further, one cannot be oblivious of the mandate of

Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’), which is a reincarnation

of Section 309 of the Code. Section 346 of the BNSS reads as

under:-

“346. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.-

(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be

continued from day-to-day basis until all the witnesses in

attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the

13

adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be

necessary for reasons to be recorded:

Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence

under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section

68, section 70 or section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023 the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period

of two months from the date of filing of the chargesheet.

(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or

commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to

postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or

trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded,

postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit,

for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a

warrant remand the accused if in custody:

Provided that no Court shall remand an accused person to

custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen

days at a time:

Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no

adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without

examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded

in writing:

Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the

purpose only of enabling the accused person to show

cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on

him:

Provided also that-

(a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a

party, except where the circumstances are beyond the

control of that party;

(b) where the circumstances are beyond the control of a

party, not more than two adjournments may be granted by

the Court after hearing the objections of the other party

and for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

(c) the fact that the advocate of a party is engaged in

another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;

(d) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his

advocate is not present or the party or his advocate though

14

present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine

the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the

statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit

dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-

examination of the witness, as the case may be.

Explanation 1.-If sufficient evidence has been obtained to

raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an

offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be

obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a

remand.

Explanation 2.-The terms on which an adjournment or

postponement may be granted include, in appropriate

cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the

accused.”

21) Section 309 of the Code reads as follows:-

“309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.—(1)In

every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued

from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have

been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of

the same beyond the following day to be necessary for

reasons to be recorded.

Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence

under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, , section

376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA or section

DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial

shall be completed within a period of two months from the

date of filing of the charge sheet.

(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or

commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to

postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or

trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded,

postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit,

for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a

warrant remand the accused if in custody:

Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused

person to custody under this section for a term exceeding

fifteen days at a time:

15

Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no

adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without

examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded

in writing:

Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the

purpose only of enabling the accused person to show

cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on

him.

Provided also that-

(a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a

party, except where the circumstances are beyond the

control of that party;

(b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another

Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;

(c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his

pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though

present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine

the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the

statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit

dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-

examination of the witness, as the case may be.

Explanation 1.—If sufficient evidence has been obtained to

raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an

offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be

obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a

remand.

Explanation 2.—The terms on which an adjournment or

postponement may be granted include, in appropriate

cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the

accused.”

22) Section 346 of the BNSS mandate s to continue

proceedings from day-to-day basis until all witnesses in

attendance are examined, unless the court finds the

16

adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be

necessary for reasons to be recorded. Moreover, stringent

conditions are imposed for adjournment of proceedings.

Harmoniously reading Section 12 of the Gangsters Act with

Section 346 of the BNSS (Section 309 of the Code), the

conclusion is irresistible that all that Section 12 of the

Gangsters Act contemplates is that, in the event of a clash of

dates, the proceedings under the Gangsters Act would be

given preference.

‘VICTIM’ HAS A RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL TOO: -

23) There is one more significant aspect of the matter. Article

21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to speedy trial.

This Court has held that right to speedy trial is not only the

prerogative of the accused but is also a valuable right of the

victim and any inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial,

could have a deleterious effect on the society in general. If the

interpretation canvassed by the respondent-accused is

accepted, it will render Section 12 of the Gangsters Act ultra

vires Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It will also give a

17

handle to the accused to delay all other cases under the

pretext that the proceedings are pending under the Gangsters

Act. Tremendous injustice will result as with every day’s

delay, preservation of evidence will become a challenge.

Witnesses will be that much less forthcoming and even if they

are, with passage of time, human memory would have begun

to fade. This Court cannot countenance any such

interpretation which will make a mockery of the judicial

process.

24) In Rattiram and Others vs. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC

516, this Court held as under:-

“59. At this juncture, we would like to refer to two other

concepts, namely, speedy trial and treatment of a victim in

criminal jurisprudence based on the constitutional

paradigm and principle. The entitlement of the accused to

speedy trial has been repeatedly emphasised by this Court.

It has been recognised as an inherent and implicit aspect in

the spectrum of Article 21 of the Constitution. The whole

purpose of speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression

and prevent delay. It is a sacrosanct obligation of all

concerned with the justice dispensation system to see

that the administration of criminal justice becomes

effective, vibrant and meaningful. The concept of

speedy trial cannot be allowed to remain a mere

formality [see Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. State of Bihar

18

[(1980) 1 SCC 81, Moti Lal Saraf v. State of J&k (2006) 10

SCC 560 and Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998) 7

SCC 507].

60. While delineating on the facets of speedy trial, it

cannot be regarded as an exclusive right of the accused.

The right of a victim has been given recognition in Mangal

Singh v. Kishan Singh [(2009) 17 SCC 303 wherein it has

been observed thus: (SCC p. 307, para 14)

"14.... Any inordinate delay in conclusion of a

criminal trial undoubtedly has a highly deleterious

effect on the society generally, and particularly on

the two sides of the case. But it will be a grave

mistake to assume that delay in trial does not cause

acute suffering and anguish to the victim of the

offence. In many cases the victim may suffer even

more than the accused. There is, therefore, no

reason to give all the benefits on account of the delay

in trial to the accused and to completely deny all

justice to the victim of the offence.”

61. It is worth noting that the Constitution Bench in Iqbal

Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [(2005) 4 SCC 370 :

(SCC p. 387, para 24) though in a different context, had

also observed that delay in the prosecution of a guilty

person comes to his advantage as witnesses become

reluctant to give evidence and the evidence gets lost.”

(Emphasis supplied)

APPLICATION TO FACTS AT HAND: -

25) Insofar as the present case is concerned, the learned trial

Judge, on 03.03.2025, while dismissing the application of the

accused, rightly observed that charges had been framed on

26.02.2024 and by 08.01.2025, the prosecution had completed

19

its evidence and statements under Section 313 of the accused

were scheduled to be recorded. It was at this stage, on

18.01.2025, that the accused have filed an application seeking

that the trial be kept in abeyance pending conclusion of trial

in the Gangsters Act. The learned trial Judge, on 03.03.2025,

had rightly noticed that when the application was rejected, the

trial under the Gangsters Act was yet to b egin since

chargesheet had just been submitted. There was no issue of

clash of dates warranting the application of Section 12 of the

Gangsters Act.

26) In our considered view, the High Court clearly erred in

reversing this order of the trial Judge. The High Court, in its

order of 25.08.2025, in spite of noticing the pronouncement of

this Court in Dharmendra Kirthal (supra) and in spite of

observing that it was never the intention of the legislature

when it enacted the Gangsters Act to stop the proceedings in

the case other than the Gangsters Act and that Section 12 was

intended only to provide a solution when there was a clash of

20

dates, still in the concluding paragraph recorded a totally

contradictory finding and directed the Session Trial No. 934 of

2023 to be kept in abeyance. The order of the High Court is

completely untenable.

CONCLUSION : -

27) For the reasons stated above, we have no hesitation in

setting aside the impugned order dated 25.08.2025 of the High

Court. As already indicated, pursuant to our interim order

dated 13.04.2026, Session Trial No. 934 of 2023 has already

concluded and the accused stand convicted.

28) The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

……….........................J.

[K. V. VISWANATHAN]

……….........................J.

[ARUN PALLI]

New Delhi;

August 17, 2026.