While hearing the matter in November last year, the SC had sought responses from the Uttar Pradesh government and others on the plea and said, “By way of ad-interim order, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner qua Gangster Act.”On Wednesday the petitioner’s counsel said he has been booked in the case under the provisions of the 1986 Act on allegations of illegal mining in the Ganga river.The counsel argued that earlier, another FIR related to alleged illegal mining was registered.”They have booked me twice for the same allegation,” the lawyer argued.The counsel appearing for the state referred to the provisions of the 1986 Act.”It requires consideration,” the bench said, adding that a separate plea challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Act was also pending adjudication before it.Before the high court, the counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated in the case lodged under the Gangsters Act.His counsel had claimed before the high court that the case has been lodged under the Gangsters Act only on the basis of another case in which the petitioner has not been named.On November 29, the top court agreed to hear a separate plea challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Act and issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government seeking its response on the petition.
Source link
