HARI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has come up before this Court, against the notice dated 17.4.2008 which according to the counsel for the petitioner contains allegations of general nature.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner does not come under the definition of U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the "Goonda Act" and Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Rules, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1970'. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Preamble of the Act which itself make special provisions for the Control of Goondas. Goondas has been defined in Section 2 (b) which is as under : 2 (b) "Goondas" means a person who- (i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits or abets, the commission of an offence punishable under Section 153B or Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, or 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 community ; or (v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls ; or (vi) is a tout.