Pappu vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Shri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.6.2003 passed by the Commissioner, rejecting appeal of petitioner under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act, 1970'').

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a single criminal complaint or criminal case does not satisfy the definition of ''Goonda'' under section 2(b) of Act 1970 and, therefore, proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Act, 1970 are patently illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Shankar Ji Shukla Vs. Ayukt, Upper Zila Magistrate (Prashasan), Varishtha Police Adhikshak and Thanadhyaksha/Prabhari Nirikshak .

The Additional District Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue), Kanpur Nagar passed an order dated 21.4.2003 under section 3 of Act 1970 observing that petitioner is a hard core criminal and he earns his livelihood on the basis of illegal activities as also goondaism. He is habitually committing offences under Chapter XVI, XVII, and XXII of Indian Penal Code and on account of his criminal and goonda activities, people residing in locality are terrorized and no one is ready to lodge a report at the police station against his criminal activities or give evidence against him. In Criminal Case No. 122 of 1988 under Sections 302/201 IPC, charge sheet has been filed in the Court. Two more criminal cases with respect to Case Crime No. 19 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC and Case Crime No. 22 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 504, 506 IPC have been registered against him in police station Narval.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in Criminal Case No. 122 of 1988 the petitioner has already been discharged and rest cases are result of enmity and partisan activities of village people.

Looking to the activities as noticed by Additional District Magistrate and the Commissioner, it cannot be said that activities of petitioner do not satisfy the definition of ''Goonda'' under Section 2(b) of Act, 1970.

The definition of Goonda reads as under:

"2. (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 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 legal business, or proposes to any legal practitioner or to any person interested in legal business to procure, in consideration of any remuneration moving from either of them, the employment of legal practitioner in such business; or

(c) for the purposes mentioned in explanation (a) or (b), frequents the precincts of civil, criminal or revenue Courts, revenue or other offices, residential colonies or residences or vicinity of the aforesaid or railway or bus stations, landing stages, lodging places or other places of public resort; or

(vii) is a house-grabber.

Explanation.--''House-grabber'' means a person who takes or attempts to take or aids or abets in taking unauthorised possession or having lawfully entered unlawfully remains in possession, of a building including land, garden, garages or out-houses appurtenant to a building."

Thus, if a person, 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 X V, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code he will be within the ambit of definition of ''Goonda'' as defined in Section 2(b)(i) of Act, 1970. Besides, there are independent clauses, i.e., 2(b)(ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) which individually or/and collectively includes person within the definition of ''Goonda''. Thus if a person has been convicted for an offence punishable under Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, or was convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under U.P. Excise Act, 1910 or Public Gambling Act, 1867 or Section 25, Section 27 or Section 29 of Arms Act, 1959 or is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community; or has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls; or is a tout, he would be ''a Goonda'' having satisfied all individual clauses which defines ''Goonda''. A person may satisfy one or more conditions under Act, 1970.

It is no doubt true that expression "habitually", under Section 2(b)(i)would mean repeatedly or persistently. An isolated act would not justify an inference of ''habitual'' commission of activity as held in Amanulla Khan Kudeat Alla Khan Pathan v. State of Gujarat and others, 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1014.

The word ''habitual'' means by force of habit as held in Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1984 SC 1334 : (1984) CriLJ 909 : (1984) 1 Crimes 914 : (1984) 1 SCALE 736 : (1984) 3 SCC 14 : (1984) 3 SCR 435 . In Amanulla Khan Kudeat Alla Khan Pathan (supra), the Court also held that it is the magnitude of activities and its effect on the even tempo of life of the society at large or with a section of society that determines whether the activities can be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or not.

In the present case, authority below had not referred to only an isolated criminal act but three criminal cases registered against him under different offences/charging sections have been referred. Besides, the authorities have also noted that petitioner is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the society. The observations made by Additional District Magistrate (F and R), in his order dated 21.4.2003 reads as under:

No one from public dares to lodge a report against him or give evidence on account of fear of his person or property.... To let him scot free would not be in the interest of society."

(English translation by Court)

The Commissioner has also noted about the reputation and conduct of the petitioner as under:

"A person who can indulge in a fight with the police, it is really natural for the society to be stricken with his fear and terror."

(English translation by Court)

Thus it cannot be said that here is a case, where an isolated criminal act has brought petitioner within ambit of ''Goonda'' as defined under Section 2(b) of Act 1970 and, therefore, Act 1970 is inapplicable in the case at hand.

No other argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the above, I do not find any manifest illegality error warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is dismissed.