# Jitendra alias Jeetu v. D.M., Gautambudh Nagar and another

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 154
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-01-25
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-alias-jeetu-v-d-m-gautambudh-nagar-and-another-39840
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

2All] Jitendra alias Jeetu V. D.M., Gautambudh Nagar and another

154
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

-LWHQGUD DOLDV -HHWX
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH *DXWDPEXGK 1DJDU
DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 6XVKLO .XPDU
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

83 &RQWURO RI *RRQGDV $FW 6
1RWLFH XQGHU ± 1R ),5 DJDLQVW SHWLWLRQHU
± 1R &ULPLQDO &DVH SHQGLQJ DJDLQVW KLP
RQ GDWH RI QRWLFH ± +RZHYHU JHQHUDO
QDWXUH RI PDWHULDO DOOHJDWLRQV PHQWLRQHG
LQ WKH LPSXJQHG QRWLFH ± 1RWLFH KHOG
YDOLG
+HOG ± SDUD DQG
$ &DUHIXO SHUXVDO RI WKH LPSXJQHG QRWLFH
VKRZV
WKDW
WKH
JHQHUDO
QDWXUH
RI
PDWHULDO
DOOHJDWLRQV
DJDLQVW
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU KDYH EHHQ PHQWLRQHG WKHUHLQ
7KHVH
JHQHUDO
QDWXUH
RI
PDWHULDO
DOOHJDWLRQV DUH WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHU LV
QRWRULRXV JRRQGD ZKR KDV FUHDWHG WHUURU
LQ WKH ORFDOLW\ E\ KLV FULPLQDO DFWLYLWLHV
+H IRUFLEO\ H[WUDFWV PRQH\ IURP WKH
SXEOLF RI WKH ORFDOLW\ DQG LQ IDFW WKLV LV
KLV
VRXUFH
RI
OLYHOLKRRG
3HRSOH
DUH
WHUURULVHG E\ KLP DQG HYHQ WKH SROLFH LV
QRW DEOH WR FDWFK KROG RI KLP DQG QRERG\
LV ZLOOLQJ WR ILOH D ILUVW LQIRUPDWLRQ UHSRUW
RU JLYH HYLGHQFH DJDLQVW KLP
:H DUH WKHUHIRUH RI WKH YLHZ WKDW WKH
GHFLVLRQ
LQ
%KLP
6DLQ
7\DJL¶V
FDVH
VXSUD LV FOHDUO\ GLVWLQJXLVKDEOH 7KH
JHQHUDO
QDWXUH
RI
WKH
PDWHULDO
DOOHJDWLRQV KDYH EHHQ PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH
LPSXJQHG QRWLFH DQG KHQFH ZH ILQG QR
LOOHJDOLW\ LQ WKH VDPH 7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW
LQ ([HFXWLYH (QJLQHHU 9 %. 6LQJK
% -7 DQG WKLV FRXUW LQ %KXSHVK
0LVUD 9V VWDWH $&&
KDYH KHOG WKDW WKH FRXUW VKRXOG QRW
RUGLQDULO\ LQWHUIHUH ZLWK D VKRZ FDXVH
QRWLFH
$FFRUGLQJO\
WKLV
3HWLWLRQ
LV
GLVPLVVHG
&DVH 5HIHUHQFH
 -,& ±
 $/-
 $/8-
 $/-
 -7
 $&&

By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
learned
Government
Advocate. The petitioner has challenged
the impugned notice dated 25.1.2001,
under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of
Goondas Act, 1971, a copy of which has
been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ
Petition.

 ¡9 L »[S ^ (ž 9 ©L ± ^ M J © o % '- © ¡[ ‹ ‘ © % (‘‹ ‹

O [ …3 ^ … O [ …} ^ … 9 [ ^ Q 0 ¿L · } U [ 0 …

(

% ()

· »…» ‘ · ) ‚ F ‘ ±

6 [ _ ‘L L % ( © 0 ž F¿ ¡% (

 ¡9 L »[S ^ (ž 9 ©L ± ^ M J © o % '- © ¡[ ‹ ‘ © % (‘} …} ^ …

O [ …} ^ … 9 [ ^ Q 0 ¿L · } U [ 0 … $% (  ¡L … ¡% (‘·

% ( } Q·  F¿ ‘ ^ ‘ % (» ) »M · 1⁄4 ‘ 0 ©[ ^ … Y

% (…% (» L

% ( ^ (¿o % (… 9 [ L % ( » | ‚ | ©L % (…L F¿

‘ % (» % ( ‚ ž ‘ · 9 % (» | o » $‹  ) »M % (» _ · -

_ ¡L „a [ 1⁄4 % ( » Y · % ( © Q»% (… Y [ ‹ ‘ ±o % (…% (» ^ [

9 ©‹ [ ‚ ^ [ % (…L F¿ ‘ % (» E… ‘ » 9 [ L | ‚ | ©L F¿

^ ¡o ‘

X … ^ % (E[ » % ( _ ‚ ‘ % (…[ » ^ … ‹ F | 0 9 L

F¿ ‘ % (» | ‚ % (» % ( …K 9 [ L % ( % ( »ž | © %‚ ¥% 'L

‘ % (» ¡‹ ‡ËU ¡…^ »@ž ¡o - [ » ‹ ‘ )‚ Q»[ » % ( » L ¿‚ …

[ F a F¿

(

- )

 ^ … »% 'L ¡9 L »[S ^ (ž 9 ©L ± % ( © ¡9 o

 0 ¿L · } U

[ 0 … O ‹ ¡9 o » % ( © ‘ ©· » $‹  0 ¡L ¡‹ ¡Y ‚ 1⁄4 $‹ 

% ( ‚ ž‹ ¡F‚ 1⁄4 9 [ ‘ Y …K ‹ · o % (» ¡o ‚ » ^ …

F ¡[ % ( …% ( F¿
 $»‘ ¡‹ ‹ ‘ % (…[ » % ( · »…» ‘ · )
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001

155

 ¡6 L % ( …K F¿ ¡% ( ‚ F ¡9 o » ‚ ‘ %

 (» ¡% (‘ © | ©

| 0 · 1⁄4 | …L ©‚ QKE ‘  ¡FL % (» Y‚ ‚ ‹

 Y ©[ QKE[ ©‚ ^ … Y % (…[ » O ‹ ¡% (‘ © $»‘ » ^ … Y

% ( » % (…[ » · 1⁄4 %‚ ‘L F¿

(

0 )

 ^ … »% 'L ¡9 L »[S ^ (ž 9 ©L ± ‘ » ‘ ) ©0 K ^ [ ©

9 [ ‹

‘ ·^ ¡N % (» | ‚ % (» % ( …K ‘ )‚ Q»[ » % ( » L ¿‚ …

[ F a F¿

(

3 )

 ^ … »% 'L ¡9 L »[S ^ (ž 9 ©L » ‘ · ‚

‘ · ‚ ^ …

 ^ … Y % (…[ » % ( Q © F¿ ¿… 0 KE ¡% (‘· % (

 ^ … ¡Y % ( %‚ ¥% 'L F¿
 ‘ % ( 9 [ L · 1⁄4 | ‚ ‹ L %

(

%‚ ^L F¿

 ^ … »% 'L % (» ‘ ·} [Y · 1⁄4 - KE % (- 0 ‹ 3 % (»

‘ ·} [Y · 1⁄4 ^ … Y 1⁄4 % ( ¡‹ ‹ …K ¡[ ·[ F¿

(1)

· ‘ /

 Y … | Q‘  O [

…} ^ …

(2)

· ‘  /

 Y … /

 ž^ ©‘ ©

O [ …} ^

…

 ^ … »% 'L ‹ £K L ^ … Y 1⁄4 % (» ¡‹ ‹ …K ‘ » ‘^ „@ F¿

 ¡% ( ¡‹ ^ ) © $% (  ¡L … ¡% (‘· % ( 0 KE %‚ ¥% 'L F¿

‘ % ( · -‚ ^  o ±@ % (…[ _ ¡L „a [ 1⁄4 % ( » Y · % ( ©

Q»% (… Y [ ‹ ‘ ±o % (…[ L O ) »M · 1⁄4 L % (

‹ | ‚

^ (¿o [ F¿
 ‘ % (» | ‚ ‹ L % ( ‘ » 9 [ L % ( % ( »ž

| © %‚ ¥% 'L ‘ % (» X … ¡% (‚ » 0 ‚ » ^ … Y 1⁄4 · 1⁄4 0 ‹ F © Q»[ »

% ( » L ¿‚ … [ F a F »L F¿ L O ‚ F } FL ‘ » ^ … Y $»‘ »

% (…L F¿ ¡9 [ % ( © ‘ Y …K L 9 [ L

 ‘ % ( © ¡ % ( ‚ L

O [ ‹ [‚ % (F a ^ … % (…[ » % ( © ¡F·· L [ F a % (…L © F¿

 ‘ % ( 9 [ L · 1⁄4 L [ L % ( } [ F F¿ ¡% (

‘ % (» ¡‹ ‡ËU % ( »ž | © %‚ ¥% 'L ‘ )‚ Q»[ » % ( ‘ F‘

[ F a % (…L F¿

 L $L Q™X …

 ^ % ( » [ » ¡@‘ ¡Q‚ 9 L F¿ ¡% (

 ^ ¡Q[ % (

 % ( » _ L } 9 » · »…»

[‚ ‚ o ‚ · 1⁄4 ^ ¥‘O L F »% (… % ( …K } L ‚ » ¡% ( 0 KE

 ¡[ ‚ M K % ( © Y … % ( © ^ Y … % (» [L 0 žL

 ^ % ( » 9 [ ^ Q 0 ¿L · } U [

 0 … O ‹ ‘ % (» ¡% (‘ ©

| © | 0 ‘ » ¡[ „% ( ¡‘ L % '‚ 1⁄4 [ % (… ¡Q‚ 9 ‚ »

 ^ % ( » ‚ F | © ¡[ Q1⁄2 ¡Q‚ 9 L F¿ ¡% ( ‚ ¡Q ^ % ( »

% ( »ž ^ ¡N F » L » ^ [ ‘^ „@ ©% (…K _ ‘L L % (…[

6 F1⁄4 [ % (» [ · ‹ ^ L

» | © ‘^ „@ ©% (…K % (» ‘ O _ ‘L L

% (…1⁄4
 $»‘ [ % (…[ » % ( © ¥‘O ¡L · 1⁄4 ‚ F ‘ · = 9 ‚ »0

 ¡% ( ^ % ( » ‘ ‘ ·} [Y · 1⁄4 % (8 [ F a % (F[ F¿ L O

_ ‘L ¡‹ L Q» ^ ¡…L % (…[ » % ( © $% (L …^ ( % ( ‚ ž‹ F ©

_ …·| % (… Q

© 9 ‚ »0 ©

‚ F [ » ¡@‘ 9 ¡Q[ % (

 % ( » · »…»

F‘L ) ¡…L $‹  ¡Q[  ¡% (L ‘ [‚ ‚ o ‚ % ( © · »F… ‘ »

9 … © ¡% (‚

O [ Y‚ ) O [ …} ^ … % ( » ‘ ¡[ Q1⁄2 % (» ‘ O

Q » _ ¡L ‚  _ » ¡„ L F¿ ¡% ( ¡[ ‚ L

 ¡L ¡O ‘ » ^ ±‹ ž L · ©o

% (… % (… L · ©o © ¡…^ »@ž ‘ ¡FL ‘ [‚ ‚ o ‚ % ( » ‘ · ‚

‘ » ¡| 9 ‹ [ ‘ ¡[ ¥6 L % (…1⁄4

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied on the Full Bench decision of
this Court in Bhim Sain Tyagi vs. State of
U.P. through D.M., Mahamaya nagar,
1999 (2) JIC 192 and has submitted that
in view of the said decision the impugned
notice is invalid. We are not in agreement
with the submission.

3. We have carefully perused the
decision of the full Bennch in Bhim Sain
Tuagi's case (supra) and we are of the
view
that
the
said
decision
is
distinguishable. In our opinion, all that the
above Full Bench decision as well as the
decision in Ramji pandey vs. State of U.P.
1981 A.L.J. 897 say is that mere mention
of some first informaiton reports in the
show cause notice is not sufficient
compliance of the requirements of Section
3 of the Act, since that Act requires that
the
general
nature of the material
allegations must also be given. In our
opinion, this only means that it is not
sufficient to merely mention the case
crime number, Section of I.P.C. and name
of the Police Station relating to an F.I.R.
in the show cause notice. In addition to
the above, the show cause notice must
also mention briefly what has been
alleged in the F.I.R. (though it is not
necessary to reproduce the entire F.I.R.).
2All] Jitendra alias Jeetu V. D.M., Gautambudh Nagar and another

156
Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act state:
"(1) where it appears to the District
Magistrate-
(a) that any person is a Goonda; and
(b) (i) that his movements or acts in the
district are causing, or are calculated to
cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or
property; or

(ii) that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is engaged, or about
to engage, in the district or any part
thereof, in the commission of any offence
punishable under chapter XVI, chapter
XVII, or chapter XIII of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 or under the suppression of
Immoral Traffice in Women and Girls
Act, 1955, or under the U.P. Excise Act,
1910, or in the absetment of any such
offence; and
(c) that 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
or property -the District magistrate shall
by notice in writing inform him of the
general nature of the material allegations
against him in respect of clauses (a), (b)
and (c) and give him a reasonable
opportunity of tendering an explanation
regarding them.

(2) The person against whom an
order under this Section is proposed to be
made shall have the right to consult and
be defended by a counsel of his choice
and
shall
be
given
a
reasonable
opportunity of examining himself, if he so
desires, and also of examining any other
witnesses that he may wish to produce in
support of his explanation, unless for
reasons to be recorded in writing the
District magistrate is of opinion that the
request is made for the purpose of
vexation or delay."

4. A careful perusal of the impugned
notice shows that the general nature of
material allegations against the petitioner
have been mentioned therein. These
general nature of material allegations are
that the petitioner is a notorious goonda
who has created terror in the locality by
his
criminal
activities.
He
forcibly
extracts money from the public of the
locality and in fact this is his source of
livelihood. People are terrorised by him
and even the police is not able to catch
hold of him and nobody is willing to file a
first information report or give evidence
against him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there must be a criminal
case pending against the petitioner before
a notice under Section 3 of U.P. Control
of Goondas Act, 1971 could be issued.
We do not agree with this submission.
There are goondas who create such terror
that nobody is willing to file a first
information report against them and hence
obviously no case will be pending against
them. In Harsh Narain v. D.M. Allahabad,
1972 A.L.J. 752, a Division Bench of this
Court held that it is not necessary that
there should be a criminal case pending
against a goonda to invoke the provisions
of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act. In
fact it is to deal with such bad elements
that U.P> Control of Goondas Act, 1971
was enacted. If people were willing to
give evidence and file first information
reports against such persons, there would
have been no need to enact the U.P.
Control of Goondas Act, and the ordinary
criminal law i.e. Cr. P.C. and I.P.C. would
have been sufficient to deal with the
situation. It is only because in our society
there are such elements who terrorise the
public and commit all kinds of crimes and
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001

157
forcibly extract money from the public
and the ordinary law was found to be
inadequate to deal with them that a
special law was required to deal with such
situations.

6. The validity of the U.P. Control
of Goondas Act has been upheld by this
court in Raja v. State, 1972 A.L.J. 83.

7. We are, therefore, of the view that
the decision in Bhim Sain Tyagi's case
(supra) is clearly distinguishable. The
general nature of the material allegations
have been mentioned in the impugned
notice and hence we find no illegality in
the
same.
The
Supreme
Court
in
Executive Enginner v R.K. Singh 1995
(8) J.T. 331 and this court Bhunesh Misra
V. State, 1998 (36) A.C.C. 355, have held
that the Court should not ordinarily
interfere with a show cause notice.
Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -

+DEHDV &RUSXV :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

%LOOD # %LUOD
«3HWLWLRQHU ,Q MDLO
9HUVXV
6XSHULQWHQGHQW 'LVWULFW -DLO %DVWL DQG
RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 'D\V 6KDQNHU 0LVUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
*$

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD ± $UWLFOH ± WKH
JURXQGV
RI
GHWHQWLRQ
DUH
YHUEDWLP
UHSURGXFWLRQ
RI
WKH
UHSRUW
RI
WKH
VSRQVRULQJ DXWKRULW\RQ WKLV JURXQG WKH
LPSXJQHG GHWHQWLRQ RUGHU GHVHUYHV WR EH
TXDVKHG
+HOG ±SDUD

"

 ¡Q[ % (21-10-2000

% ( » ‘ · ‚ % (… ©} 8=00

} 9 » _ L "
LV
D
YHUEDWLP
UHSURGXFWLRQ
RI
WKH
VSRQVRULQJ
DXWKRULW\¶V
UHSRUW
IURP
SDUDJUDSK RQZDUGV RI WKH VDLG UHSRUW
+HQFH
WKLV
DUJXPHQW
RI
WKH
OHDUQHG
FRXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU LV DOVR FRUUHFW
DQG RQ WKLV JURXQGV DOVR WKH LPSXJQHG
GHWHQWLRQ RUGHU GHVHUYHV WR EH TXDVKHG

By the Court

1. These habeas corpus Petitions
challenge the impugned detention order
dated 15.11.2000 Annexure 1 to the writ
Petitions passed under the National
Security Act.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for
the
petitioners
and
learned
Government Advocate. Several arguments
have been advanced before us. Firstly it is
alleged that there was delay by the
Central Government in deciding the
petitioners' representation. In paragraph
26 of the petition it is alleged that on
22.11.2000 the petitioner gave several
copies of his representation to the jail
authorities requesting them to forward
them
to
the
State
and
Central
Governments In paragraph 17 of the
counter affidavit of the District Magistrate
it is stated that the petitioners submitted
their representations to the jail authorities
on 27.11.2000 but it was not addressed to
the Central Government nor any request
was made to send it to the Central
Government. The District Magistrate
received the representation on 28.11.2000