Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently criticized the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Hapur, for issuing a show cause notice under Section 3/4 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, against a man with only one case registered against him.

The bench of Justices Surendra Singh and Siddharth held that the notice was issued in abuse of power vested in the ADM who had "acted against the presumption of fairness in due discharge of his official duties".

Further, on the issue, court said that it appears that in the State, the powers of the State vested in state authorities is being misused by issuing wanton and arbitrary notices under Section 3/4 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 by the public servants.

Court highlighted that earlier vide Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12619 of 2023, it had cautioned the State Government for forming uniform guidelines regarding the applicability of U.P. Control of Goondas Act and granted time by 31st October, 2023 for circulation of the same to all the District Magistrates of the State.

"This Court finds that despite earlier order of this Court, the State Government has not bothered to issue any guidelines to the District Magistrates regarding applicability of the Act and the District Magistrates and their subordinates are continuously issuing illegal notices under Section 3 of the Act," court noted. 

Therefore, while restraining itself from passing any further remarks against ADM (Judicial), Hapur, court issued a direction to the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P., Lucknow that he should ensure that the public servants exercising powers of the State should remain within the bounds of law and violation of law may entail disciplinary proceedings against them.  

Court also quashed the impugned notice. 

The decision came in a writ petition filed by one Ravi who had been implicated in a case under Sections 269, 270, 273 of the I.P. C, Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Sections 3 of  the Epidemic Diseases Act 1987 & 240 of the J.P. Act.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the notice issued against the petitioner was in violation of law as apart from the above case, there was no other implication of the petitioner of a similar nature in any case. 

Court observed that the petitioner e was not found to be habitual of committing the alleged offenses. It highlighted its judgments in Shankar Ji Shukla Vs. Ayukt Allahabad Mandal and others (2005) and Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shankar Vs. State of U.P. and others (2011) where it was held that "a person cannot be held to be 'goonda' only on the basis of one or two acts; he can be held to be 'goonda' only when he is in the habit of committing repeated offences".

Furthermore, court noted that general nature of material allegations was there in the present case and the list of case crimes/first information reports/beat report registered against the petitioner did not satisfy the test of a valid notice under Section 3(1) carrying the "general nature of material allegations".

"it is clear that the respondent no. 2 has issued the impugned notice without considering the provisions of law and only on the basis of implication of the petitioner in a single case only on the basis of two beat reports. The basis of his implication second case under Gangsters Act is related to implication earlier case under Cow Slaughter Act. Therefore, the recital in the notice that the petitioner is a goonda and habitually commits the offences under Chapter XVI, XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code and witnesses are not willing to give evidence against him by reason of apprehension on their part regarding their safety etc., are absolutely false," the high court held. 

Therefore, while allowing the petition, court imposed cost of Rs 20,000 payable to the petitioner by the State within two months.

Case Title: Ravi v. State of UP and 3 Others