Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Guddu Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7436 of 2023
Decided on : 27-07-2023
U.P. Control of Goodnas Act, 1970 - Section 3, 3(1) - Cow Slaughter Act - Section 3/5A/8 - Animal Cruelty Act - Section 11 - Criminal appeal - Goonda - Held, As per definition and the law settled by this Court as well by the Apex Court, one cannot be treated to be a habitual offender unless and until there is recurrence of the offence and at the most the general reputation of the person is that he is desperate and dangerous to the community - Since in this case against the petitioner there is reference of one extreme instance only the petitioner could not be deemed to be a habitual offender on the basis of that single incident only, so notice falls short of legal requirement as provided in Clause (1) of Section 2 (b) of the 1970 Act - Writ petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
2. By means of order dated 3.1.2022, Additional District Magistrate, Bhadohi, made the notice issued to petitioner under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goodnas Act, 1970 absolute and passed an externment order for six months against the petitioners from District Bhadohi. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Bhadohi, the petitioner filed a criminal appeal under Section 3(1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act before Commissioner Vindhyachal Division at Mirzapur. Learned Commissioner examined the legality and correctness of impugned order passed by learned ADM, denied to interfere in impugned order and found the appeal without any force and dismissed the appeal. Impugned order was affirmed in appeal.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act was instituted against the petitioner after issuance of notice under Section Section 3 (1) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, wherein, it was stated that S.H.O. Gopiganj/S.P. Bhadohi informed him that Guddu Chauhan, son of Lallu Chauhan, resident of Village Mahuari, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi, is a goonda who either himself or as a member or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempt to commit or abets the commission of offence punishable under Chapter XVI, Chapter XXII of Indian Penal Code. He is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and danger to the community. His activities are dangerous to the person and property of the people of the locality. The witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him for the reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property. A case is registered vide Crime No.194 of 2019, under Section 3/5A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 of Animal Cruelty Act on 24.8.2019, when a Sub-Inspector recovered four number of progeny of cow from him, which were loaded on a vehicle bearing registration No.UP-66-T-88-72 in inhumane and cruel manner. The petitioner was directed to appear on 2.7.2020, at 10:00 A.M. before Additional District Magistrate pursuant to said notice and submit his explanation. He was also given opportunity to examine himself or any other witness in support of his stand. The Additional District Magistrate observed in impugned order that even after sufficient service of notice, the opposite party failed to appear before him either personally or through counsel and after perusing the report of Superintendent of Police, he was satisfied that the opposite party is a person, who is desperate to the community and his act comes within the purview of U.P. Control of Goondas Act and on this finding, he was directed to be externed from limits of District Bhadohi for a period of six months. He next submitted that the petitioner assailed the externment order passed by the ADM before learned Commissioner Vindhyachal Divison at Mirzapur, who after hearing submissions of petitioner and State counsel dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned order passed by learned ADM. He further submitted that the accused appellant already enlarged on bail in said
The court emphasized that administrative orders must be supported by adequate reasoning, and failure to demonstrate habitual offending renders such orders unsustainable.
Goonda means a person who is covered by (i) of Section 2(b) or Clause (ii) or Clause (iii) or Clause (iv) or Clause (v) of the said Section. All the clauses are disjunctive as is evident from the use....
The court established that a single incident does not suffice to classify an individual as a 'Goonda' under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, necessitating evidence of habitual offending.
The classification of an individual as a 'goonda' requires substantial evidence of habitual criminal behavior, not merely vague allegations or police reports.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person cannot be labeled a 'goonda' based on one or two acts, and the notice issued under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act must contain the g....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
