P ARUMUGHAM Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question in, this application is whether the Madras Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act (Act 6 of 1348) in its entirety or any of its provisions has become void after the coming into force of the new Constitution as being inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of it. The 16 petitioners are residents of Ramjeenagar, a village in Tiruchirapalli taluk or Tiruchirapalli District. One of them, namely, the first petitioner, was served with a memorandum of the proceedings of the District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, dated 12-5-1951. It is alleged that similar notices were intended to be served on the other petitioners and other persons The memorandum is in the following terms: "memorandum for imposing restrictions on Habitual offenders: It is hereby informed that as the person whose name and address is described below has been registered under the Criminal Tribes Act, 1924, and as he within a period of five years immediately preceding 29-41948 had been either ordered to give security for good behaviour with reference' to Section 110, Cr. P. C. or convicted of an offence under Section 24 of the said Act or of a non-bailable offence under any other law, a notification is deemed to have been issued under Section 3, Sub-section (1), Restriction of the Habitual Offenders Act, 1948, he is declared to be subject to all the provisions of the said Act, and further subject to all the restrictions imposed under the Criminal Tribes Act before 29-4-1948. Further the said person is informed that he is bound to intimate to village or police officers of the place mentioned in column 5 of the schedule hereunder every change or intended change of his residence. (By order) Sd. G. M. Muthuswami, for District Magistrate, Fascimile of Muthukannu, Huzur Head Clerk. SCHEDULE No. No. under Name Father's Residence Particulars of Criminal Name the place to Tribes Act which the person is confined. 12345 6 14 26c/trikep Arumngnin Ponniah Ramjeenagar' Within five Semi Palaniuniles round sudi Itam-jeenagar Area. To understand the implication of this notice and the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the impugned Act as well as the prior enactments, namely, the Criminal Tribes Act, 1924, and the Madras Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1943.

(2.) THE Criminal Tribes Act was passed by the Indian Legislature in 1924 and was amended by the Criminal Tribes (Madras Amendment) Act, 1943 and another amending Act of 1945. It is useful to first refer to its main provisions as they stood before the amendments. Under Section 3 of that Act, if the Provincial Government had reason to believe that any tribe, gang or class of persons or any part thereof was addicted to the systematic commission of non-bailable offences, it was empowered to declare by notification that such tribe, gang or class of part thereof was a criminal tribe for the purposes of that Act. Sections 4 to 9 deal with the registration of members of any criminal tribe or part of a criminal tribe by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate had to publish a notice at the place where the register was to be made and other places as he thought fit calling upon all the members of the criminal tribe to appear at a time and place specified before the person appointed in that behalf and to give that person such information as may be necessary to enable him to make the register. The District Magistrate was given the power of exempting any member from registration. After the preparation of the register, no person's name could be added to the register nor any register cancelled except by or under an order in writing by the District Magistrate. Section 7, Sub-section (2) expressly provides that before the name of any person is added to the register the Magistrate shall give notice to the person concerned. Section 8 is as follows:

(3.) THE other provisions are not material for this application.