KAROO RANA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions the petitioners seek to quash the grounds for taking action under Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, the order as contained in Annexure 3 and the order in appeal (Annexure 4) refusing to restore the appeal which was dismissed for non -appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised several points. His first point is that the petitioners are not -social elements because they have not been found to be habitually committing crimes under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. The order passed against the petitioners is both under Sec. 3(3)(a) and (b) which is per se illegal. The District Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind by passing the order of externment; is violation of the principles of natural justice and the reason assigned for non -restoration of the appeal dismissed for default.

(2.) Mr. Kamlapati Singh, Government Pleader No. 5, contended that there is no substance in any one of these contentions. I will consider his submissions while dealing with the points raised on behalf of the petitioners.

(3.) The contention of learned counsel is that the words "habitually commits" must mean a case where such a person is convicted of the offences visualised under Sec. 2(d)(i). Mere pendency of cases under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code by itself will not make a person anti -social. Mr. Kamlapati Singh, on the other hand, drew my attention to Sec. 2(d)(v) and submitted that wherever the legislators thought that such a situation can only be taken into consideration they have so mentioned as for instance Sec. 2(d)(v).