The Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 mandates that only a designated District Magistrate can issue externment notices, ensuring proper authority and adherence to due process of law.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the notice dated 02.04.2024 contained in Memo No.681/Legal (the copy of which has been kept at Annexure-1) issued under the signature of Incharge Officer, Legal Branch, Koderma, directing the petitioner to appear on 05.04.2024 in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma personally or through the advocate at 3 p.m. in connection with C.C.A. Case No.28 of 2024 and to submit his reply, as to why not an order under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 for externment of the petitioner, be passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Section 3 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 and submits that under Section 3 (1), the District Magistrate is to issue notice in writing and also is required to inform the person to whom such notice is issued, of the general nature of the material allegations against him in respect of the Section 3 (1) (a)and (b) of the said Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 2 (b) of the said Act provides that, District Magistrate includes an Additional District Magistrate or the Sub Divisional Officer, specially empowered by the State Government, who may act as District Magistrate but under no circumstance, the Incharge Officer of the Legal Branch; is empowered to exercise the power vested upon the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002. Hence, the notice kept at Annexure-1 is not sustainable in law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nishant Singh @ Kumar Nishant vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in W.P. (Cr.) (D.B.) No.551 of 2023 dated 08.11.2023 and submits that in the facts of that case when pendency of two criminal cases against the petitioner of that case was mentioned, still the Division Bench of this Court held that the pendency of two criminal cases against the petitioner of that case does not amount to general nature of material allegations against the petitioner of that case but in this case there is not even reference of any criminal case against the petitioner, let alone, any other material. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner, as prayed for in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent- State on the other hand submits that the petitioner is an anti-social element but the essential ingredient has inadvertently been left out in the notice issued to him. It is further submitted that the Incharge, Legal Branch, Koderma has been duly authorized by the District Magistrate, Koderma. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, be dismissed.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer Section 3 of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 which reads as under:-

3. Externment etc. of anti-social elements. - (1) Where it appears to the District Magistrate that-

(a) any person is an anti-social element, and

(b) (i) that his movements or acts in the district or any part thereof are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property;

(ii) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is engaged or about to engage in the district or any part thereof, in the commission of any offence punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or und