SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(All) 336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Karunesh Singh Pawar, JJ.
Ashok Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Ors. - Respondents
Misc. Bench No. - 2074 of 2019
Decided On : 24-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Nripendra Mishra

Point of Law
For taking action under Section 3 of the 1970 Act against a person as defined under clause (i) of Section 2(b) of the Act there must be more than one offence against the alleged person.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, Article 226 – U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 – Section 3 (1) – petitioner is praying for quashment of notice issued by Additional District Magistrate, Bahraich under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 – Held, Act is a powerful tool for the control and suppression of the 'Goondas'; it should be used very sparingly in very clear cases of 'public disorder' or for the maintenance of 'public order'. If the provisions of the Act are recklessly used without adopting caution and desecration, it may easily become an engine of operession. Its provisions are not intended to secure indirectly a conviction in case where a prosecution for a substantial offence is likely to fail. Similarly the Act should not obviously be used against mere innocent people or to march over the opponents who are taking recourse to democratic process to get their certain demands fulfilled or to wreck the private vengeance-for taking action under Section 3 of the 1970 Act against a person as defined under clause (i) of Section 2(b) of the Act there must be more than one offence against the alleged person – Notices quashed – Petition allowed.

Facts of the Case

Impugned notice has been issued against the petitioner only on the ground of his involvement in a solitary caseunder Sections 354, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rupaidiha, Bahraich, in which, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Court below vide judgment and order. much prior to issuance of the impugned show cause notice.

Finding of the Court

Act is a powerful tool for the control and suppression of the 'Goondas'; it should be used very sparingly in very clear cases of 'public disorder' or for the maintenance of 'public order'. If the provisions of the Act are recklessly used without adopting caution and desecration, it may easily become an engine of operession. Its provisions are not intended to secure indirectly a conviction in case where a prosecution for a substantial offence is likely to fail. Similarly the Act should not obviously be used against mere innocent people or to march over the opponents who are taking recourse to democratic process to get their certain demands fulfilled or to wreck the private vengeance-for taking action under Section 3 of the 1970 Act against a person as defined under clause (i) of Section 2(b) of the Act there must be more than one offence against the alleged person – Notices quashed.

Result: Petition allowed

JUDGMENT :

Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

1. Short counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the respondents State is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents State.

3. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashment of notice dated 13.1.2017 issued by Additional District Magistrate, Bahraich under Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "1970 Act"), Police Station Rupaidiha, District Bahraich..

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned notice has been issued against the petitioner only on the ground of his involvement in a solitary case i.e. Case Crime No. 1540 of 2014, under Sections 354, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Rupaidiha, Bahraich, in which, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Court below vide judgment and order dated 30.05.2015 i.e. much prior to issuance of the impugned show cause notice. He also submitted that the petitioner is neither a Gang leader nor any Gang member of any gang. Therefore, issuance of impugned notice to the petitioner amounts to violation of his right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. For the above said reasons, he prayed that a suitable direction may be issued to the respondents to quash the impugned notice.

5. Per contra, based on the short counter affidavit, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the learned Court below had acquitted the petitioner in Case Crime No. 1540 of 2014 on the basis of doubt and the prosecutrix had supported the prosecution case at the initial stage but in subsequent stage, she had changed her stand. The Challani report, which was sent to the Additional District Magistrate through Superintendent of Police, Bahraich make it crystal clear that the petitioner is having notorious reputation and due to this, no one is coming forward to give evidence against him. He further submits that when the notice was served upon the petitioner on 12.12.2018, he has not appeared before the learned Court below on 24.1.2019 and the next date is fixed for 25.2.2019. He, therefore, submitted that there is no manifest illegality in issuing the impugned notice to the petitioner.

6. Section 2 (b) of the 1970 Act defines 'Goonda', which reads as under :

    (b) 'Goonda' means a person who -

(i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offence punishable under Section 153 or Section 153-B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code; or

(ii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956; or

(iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 or the Public Gambling Act, 1867 or Section 25, Section 27 or Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959; or

(iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community; or

(v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls; or

(vi) is a tout;

Explanation - 'Tout' means a person who-

(a) accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means any public servant or member of Government, Parliament or of State Legislature, to do or forbear to do anything or to show favour or disfavour to any person or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central or State Government, Parliament or State Legislature, any local authority, Corporation, Government Company or public servant;

or

(b) procures, in consideration of any remuneration moving from any legal practitioner interested in any

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top