JINTENDRA ALIAS JEETU Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned GovernmentAdvocate. 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.The said notice is reproduced below :-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bhim Sain Tyagi v. State of U.P. through D.M. Mahamaya Nagar, 1999 (2) JIC 192 : (1999 All LJ 1845) 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 Bench in Bhim Sain Tyagi'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 v. State of U.P., 1981 ALJ 897 : (1981 Cri LJ 1083) say is that mere mention of some first information reports in the show cause notice is not sufficient compliance of the requirements of Section 3 of the Act, since the 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 FIR in the show cause notice. In addition to the above, the show cause notice must also mention briefly what has been alleged in the FIR (though it is not necessary to reproduce the entire FIR).Section 3(1) and (2) of the Act state :"