Amit Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1192 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R		
 
				                                                              Reserved on 29.03.2022
 
Delivered on 12.04.2022
 
Court No. - 47
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3010 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Amit Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajnish Shukla,Saroj Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A
 

 

 
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

(Delivered by Hon. Deepak Verma,J.)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the record.

The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the impugned show cause notice dated 01.02.2022 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Gorakhpur, under Section ¾ U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a student of B.A. II year and his examination is going to start from 22.03.2022 and his conduct has always been good. He has been falsely implicated in the impugned notice on account of involvement in a solitary case under Section ¾ U.P. Control of Goondas Act. The petitioner is neither the gang leader nor he is associated with any gang as member and, therefore, no offence under the Goondas Act is made out. He has falsely been implicated in Case Crime No.161 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506, 336, 352, 427 I.P.C. It has next been contended that Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet in the aforesaid case. The petitioner has been enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Counsel for the petitioner next argued that the respondents with mala fide intention initiated proceedings and issued notice dated 01.02.2022 under Section ¾ of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 against the petitioner, which is faulty and without following the mandatory provisions provided under Section 3(1) of the Act. It has been further argued that notice should contain essential assertion of facts in relation to matter set out in clause a, b and c sub Section 1 of Section 3 of Goondas Act. The notice dated 01.02.2022, challenged herein, does not refer to any evidence or facts.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon full Bench decision (five Judges) Bhim Sain Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. reported in Alld. Criminal cases, 1999 (39) 321 and RamJi Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in Criminal Law Journal 1981 (1083) and two other judgments passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and submitted that present petition has been filed against the show cause notice and petitioner has remedy to reply of the show cause notice before the authority. The impugned notice issued against the petitioner is just and proper and according to provisions laid down in Section 3 of Goondas Act. It is further submitted that it is well settled proposition of law that on solitary case, notice can be issued.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the aforesaid judgments.

The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner with regard to notice is that it does not contain the essential assertions which are required by Section 3(1) clauses a, b and c of Goondas Act. The notice issued under Section ¾ of the petitioner does not contain the mandatory ingredients provided under Section 3(1) of Goondas Act. Notice issued to the petitioner is quoted below:

उ०प्र०, गुण्डा नियंत्रण अधिनियम की धारा- 3/4 के अन्तर्गत नोटिसः-

संख्या- 249/ पेशकार-22 दिनांक 01.02.22

चूंकि मेरे सामने रखी गयी सूचना के आधार पर मुझे यह प्रतीत होता है कि अमित शर्मा पुत्र धर्मेन्द्र शर्मा, नि० मिश्रौली, थाना गगहा, जिला गोरखपुर एक गुण्डा है अर्थात वह स्वयं भारतीय दण्ड संहिता के अध्याय 16,17,22 के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध करता है। समाज के लिये दुःसाहसिक एवं खतरनाक व्यक्ति होने की इसकी सामान्य ख्याति है। वह भा०द०सं० के अध्याय 16,17,22 में वर्णित अपराधो को करने का अपराधी है। इसकी गतिविधियां व्यक्तियों को खति पहुंचाने वाली हैं इसके भय के कारण जनता को कोई भी व्यक्ति इसके विरूद्ध पुलिस को सूचना देने गवाही दने को तैयार नहीं होता हैं इसके विरूद्ध सारवान आरोप संलग्न हैः-

1- अभियुक्त के विरूद्ध मु०अ०सं 161/2021, धारा 147, 148 ,452, 323, 504, 506, 336, 352, 427 भादवि अधिनियम के विरूद्ध पंजीकृत हुआ,जिसके विवेचनांपरान्त पजीकृत हुआ, आरोप पत्र दिनांक 31.07.2021 को न्यायालय प्रेषित किय गया, जो विचाराधीन न्यायालय है।

2- वीट सूचना दिनांक 11.12.2021 थाना गगहा, रपट सं० 53

अतः अभियुक्त अमित शर्मा पुत्र धमेन्द्र शर्मा, नि० मिश्रौली, थाना गगहा, जिला गोरखपुर को एतद्द्वारा आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह मेरे समक्ष दिनांक 28.02.2022 को समय 10.00 बजे मेरे न्यायालय में उपसिति होवे और यदि चाहे तो उक्त सारवान आरोपो के सम्बन्ध में कारण बतलाते हुये अपना लिखित स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत करे कि क्यों न उसके विरूद्ध उ०प्र० गुण्डा नियंत्रण अधिनियम अध्यादेश 1970 की उपधारा (3) के के अधीन आदेश दिया जाये तथा साथ ही मुझे यह भी सूचित करे कि क्या वह अपने स्पष्टीकरण के समर्थन में अपना अथवा किसी अन्य साक्षी का ( यदि ऐसा हो साक्षियों के नाम एवं पते) का परीक्षण कराना चाहते है।

अभियुक्त अमित शर्मा पुत्र धर्मेन्द्र शर्मा, नि० मिश्रौली, थाना गगहा, जिला गोरखपुर को पुनः यह सूचित किया जाता है कि यदि वह उपर्युक्त प्रकार से उपस्थित नहीं होता है एवं निर्दिष्ट समय के अन्दर कोई स्पष्टीकरण अथवा सूचना नहीं देता है तो मान लिया जायेगा कि अभियुक्त को उपरोक्त के सम्बन्ध में कोई स्पष्टीकरण देना/ किसी भी साक्षी का परीक्षपण नहीं कराना चाहता है और मेरे द्वारा प्रस्तावित आदेश पारित करने की कार्यवाही कर दी जायेगी।

On perusal of notice, it is apparent that notice impugned lacks the assertion of facts in relation to the matters set out in Clause a, b and c and sub Section 1 of Section 3 of Goondas Act. In the instant case, the notice is general in nature and lacking is material particulars. The notice states that petitioner habitually commits crimes or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences and is generally reported to be a person, who is desperate and dangerous to the community. Witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person and property.

In para-17 of judgment in RamJi Pandey (Supra), the Court has held as under :

"17. Learned Standing Counsel urged that on a liberal construction of the notice the material allegations on the basis of which action against the petitioner is proposed' to be taken are dis-cernable, and as such the notice is not rendered illegal and the proceedings taken against the petitioner are valid. It is true that validity of a notice is generally upheld if it substantially conforms with the requirement of law but while considering the validity of a notice issued under Section 3 of the Act the same considerations cannot be applied. As noted earlier, the Act is extraordinary in nature. Its provisions permit serious in-; road on the liberty of a citizen as the provisions permit extemment of a driven (without a judicial trial. The power conferred on the authorities and the procedure provided by the Act seriously impinge upon the fundamental rights of a citizen and it makes a serious inroad on the personal liberty. The provisions of the Act provide slender safeguards to a citizen in requiring the District Magistrate and other authorities to give notice to the person against whom action is proposed under the Act and to set out the general nature of material allegations in the notice with a view to give opportunity to the person concerned to submit his explanation and to defend himself. The persons against whom action is proposed to be taken under the Act has a meagre opportunity of submitting his explanation to the allegations contained in the notice issued to him and to defend himself by producing evidence before the District Magistrate. These are the only safeguaids which the provisions of the Act provide to a citizen against Whom action is proposed to be taken. In such a situation the question of liberal jconstruction of notice does not arise, The Drovisiento of the Act, in our opinjjon, should be strictly complied by the extortive while taking action under the Act. This was emphasised by the Supreme Court in Pandharinath's case 1973 Cri LJ 612 Where it observed (at P. 615):

We will only add that case must be taken to ensure that the terms of Sections 56 and 59 are strictly complied and the slender safeguard which those provisions offer are given, to the proposed] exrternee.

this Court also made similar observations; in Harsh Narainfs case 1972 All LJ 762 in saying that the executive must strictly comply with the pirvisions of the Act. We are therefore ' o$ the opinion that if notice issued) under, Section 3(1) of the Act is not in accorder lance with the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Act and if it fails to comply, with the mandatory requirements of, setting out the general nature of material allegations further proceedings Initialed, in, pursuance of that notice would, also be rendered Illegal."

In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that while issuing notice, the executive must strictly comply with the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Goondas Act.

We find that in view of the full Bench decision, notice issued against the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Goondas Act, hence, impugned notice under Section ¾ of Goondas Act against the petitioner fails to comply with the mandatory requirement of setting out the material allegation and is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Act.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 01.02.2022 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Gorakhpur, under Section ¾ U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 is hereby, quashed. However, it is open to the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order, if any material is available against the petitioner.

Order Date :- 12.04.2022

Meenu