LAWS(ALL)-1979-8-71

NAR SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

Decided On August 01, 1979
NAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the validity of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner is a resident of Police Station, Taj Ganj, Agra. He was served with a notice under Section 3 of the Act informing him of the general nature of the material allegations against him in respect of Clauses (a) (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of' the Act and was called upon to offer his explanation regarding them. In the notice, the various allegations on which the Additional District Magistrate was satisfied that the petitioner was a Goonda had been mentioned. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner moved an application that the evidence of the State should be recorded first and thereafter the petitioner be asked to furnish evidence. The application was rejected on the ground that the application since was mis-conceived, the prayer made in the same could not be granted.

(2.) THE only provision challenged as ultra vires in the present case is Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 reads as under:

(3.) COUNSEL's contention was that since a valuable right of cross-examination of the witnesses sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, has been denied by Sub-section (2) of Section 3, the procedure for declaring a person as Goonda is unjust, and unreasonable. According to the petitioner since Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure prescribed by law, the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Counsel contended that since the right of cross-examination as well as the ordinary procedure followed for the proof of the offence against the accused has not been adopted by Section 3 of the Act, Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section is liable to be declared ultra vires.