The Allahabad High Court while setting aside an order of externment, reiterated that one cannot be treated to be a habitual offender unless and until there is a recurrence of the offence and reputation of the person projects him/her as desperate and dangerous to society.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sadhna Ran in this view, allowed writ of the petitioner and noted that order of externment can't be passed against a person on the basis of one deviated single incident, under Goonda Act.
The impugned order has been assailed on various grounds:
-Notice under Section 3 (1) of the Goonda Act was issued but the same was never served upon him
-Notice was issued on the basis of only one case registered against him
The petitioner's Counsel has contended that his name is dragged only due to political pressure and village partibandi. He submitted that his client is neither of any criminal background nor his face value is known as Goonda in his locality and without collecting any evidence and making enquiry about his character, the notice was issued and consequently, the order was passed against him. He contested the assertion that petitioner will influence the assembly elections and averred that impugned order is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court at the outset noted that Notice was duely served upon him and after investigation the charge sheet was filed and as the petitioner could not prove that he does not have reputation of goonda so he was not entitled for any relief.
It also rejected the contention that the petitioner wasn't provided with opportunity to oppose the Notice as it was him who couldn't appear due to some personal reason. Interestingly, his Counsel also didn't appear when the order was passed.
Further, the Court noted that upon investigation of beet information, Police found that the petitioner is an extraneous goonda, who is involved in the offences regarding assault and causing injury and on the basis of apprehension of the coming elections being adversely affected by him the notice was issued against him.
The Court reiterated the meaning of 'goonda' as prescribed in Section 2 (b) of the Goonda Act and went on to cite Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, 1984 Latest Caselaw 79 SC wherein it was held that it is essential to refer to at least two incidents of commission of crime for applicability of Clause (i) of section 2(b) of the 1970 Act.
Since there is reference of one incident only in the notice in hand, it falls short of the legal requirement as provided in Clause (i) of section 2(b) of the 1970 Act, the Court ruled.
"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."
In the present matter, the Court noted that there is reference of one extreme instance only and therefore the petitioner could not be deemed to be a habitual offender on the basis of that single incident only.
The writ was allowed, impugned order and notice were thus quashed.
Read Oder @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
