SHIV SHANKER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Shanker Singh a mill worker working in the Vegetable Oil Mill of Jaipur, namely Rohtas Industries Ltd. , Jaipur, has filed this writ application challenging the proceedings against him under the provisions of the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1975 ). The petitioner claims that he is an active member of the Trade Union affiliated to the Centre of Indian Trade Union (CITU) and is an office bearer of this Union. On account of trade union activities and the strike during the period from October 27, 1978 to Dec, 5, 1978 in which he actually participated, certain criminal cases have been registered against him on the complaints of the management. The criminal cases have been registered under sees. 147, 149 and 323 I. P. C. ete. , and challans have been filed in which he has been released on bail.

(2.) DURING the pendency of these cases, the management of the Factory made complaint to get ride of him, by getting him declared a 'goonda' under the provisions of the Act, 1975. With that end of view police moved the Additional Collector, Jaipur who served a notice on the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. 1975. In reply to this notice petitioner, submitted his reply dated April 26, 1979 which is Annexure 2. It was mentioned in this reply that the petitioner is a trade union worker and in connection with the strike commencing from October 27, 1978 to December 5. 1978, petitioner remained on stike and did not surrender to the pressure of the management and the police. It is on this account of the participiation in strike and the trade union activities that the police and the management of the Factory in collusion, have launched three cases against him. The petitioner requested the authority under the Act to drop the proceedings as the provision of the Act, 1975 is not applicable in his case and it was a case of victimisation and harrassment only. This reply of the petitioner dated April 26, 1979, was considered by the Additional Collecior and was rejected on June 31, 1979 without mentioning any reason whatsoever.

(3.) THE above controversy raises serious question of law, whether the meaning of word "found" used in sec. 2 of the Act, 1975 includes a tentative finding of a police officer, in a criminal case, on the basis of, a challan or whether it would mean a finding of a conviction by Criminal Court ?