RAM SEWAK Vs. D M JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned standing counsel.

(2.) THE petitioner has sought for quashing of notice dated 2nd July, 1992 (Annexure 6 of the writ petition) issued under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Gonads Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urges, there is no indication in the notice nor there is any evidence to show that the petitioner has actually, threatened the witnesses. If there was such fear caused by the petitioner various first information reports would not have been tiled against him. This contention has no merit. At this stage we are not examining evidence, only whether the District Magistrate while issuing notice under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act committed any jurisdictional error or issued notice without satis fying himself on the basis of the record before him. We come to the conclu sion, there was no jurisdictional error committed by the authority in issuing the impugned notice. Mentioning of various cases against the petitioner indicates the background of the petitioner. The District Magistrate was satisfied on the basis of the report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhanai, dated 19th May, 1992 and came to the conclusion that the various acquittals were on the basis of the threat extended by the petitioner causing fear in the mind of the witnesses. This by itself is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the authority to issue notice under Section 3 of the Act. We are not adjudicating on the merits of the case as it would be a matter to be decided by the authorities after opportunity to the petitioner. Thus it cannot be said that the authority did not apply his mind or in issuing notice ha committed any jurisdictional error.