ORDER R.L. Gulati, J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution by Ram Adhar Singh alias Khaddak Singh. 2. The DM of Gorakhpur passed an order against the Petitioner u/s 3(3) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act whereby he was required to remove himself from the district of Gorakhpur for a period of six months. The Petitioner's appeal to the Commr. of Gorakhpur has also been dismissed. The present petition is directed against the orders of the DM and of the Commr. 3. The police of Gagaha police station sent a report against the Petitioner to the effect that he was a habitual murderer and a criminal and his being at large was dangerous and hazardous to the community and that he was such a terror in the locality that the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence against him. In the report a number of cases launched against him as well as number of reports of con-cognizable offences recorded against him in various police stations were mentioned. The report was forwarded by the SP Gorakhpur to the DM of Gorakhpur with a recommendation that action against him be taken under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act. The DM of Gorakhpur issued a notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed an explanation in which he denied all the allegations and alleged that after his acquittal in a murder case in 1947 the police had been trying to implicate him in one case or the other, but on their failure to secure his conviction, they had sent up a false report against him. He also examined two witnesses to show that he was not a Goonda but enjoyed good reputation in the locality. After considering all the facts before him, the DM felt satisfied that the Petitioner was a Goonda and his movement in the district was hazardous to the community and passed the impugned order on August 23, 1971. The order of the DM has been affirmed in appeal by the Commr. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has reiterated the contentions which were raised before the DM and the Commr. It has been argued that except in a case u/s 302 IPC in 1947, the Petitioner was acquitted in all subsequent charges. There was thus no material upon which the impugned order could be passed against him. 5. The Commr. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has reiterated the contentions which were raised before the DM and the Commr. It has been argued that except in a case u/s 302 IPC in 1947, the Petitioner was acquitted in all subsequent charges. There was thus no material upon which the impugned order could be passed against him. 5. The Commr. found that the Petitioner had been convicted in a murder case in 1947. Thereafter when he came out of the Jail after about five years, he was wanted in another criminal case in which he was declared an absconder and when an attempt was made to arrest him, he resisted and on that account was convicted to one year's RI u/s 224, IPC in 1952. Thereafter from 1959 onwards he committed a number of crimes in police station Gagaha and other police stations of the district, but his conviction could not be secured. In Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1965 u/s 307, IPC he was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted for that reason. Thereafter there were reports against him from PS Cantt., PS Balipar and PS Bansgaon Under Sections 392 IPC, 302 IPC, 332/452/384 IPC but the Petitioner was acquitted. In 1970 there were a number of reports of non-cognizable offences against him. The Commr. then proceeded to assess the Value of the evidence of the two defence witnesses produced by the Petitioner and came to the conclusion that the witnesses were not reliable. On these findings the Commr. upheld the order passed against the Petitioner by the DM, Gorakhpur. 6. According to the definition given in Section 2(b) of the Act, 'Goonda' means a person, who (i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable u/Ch. XVI, Ch. XVII or Ch. XXII of the IPC, or (ii)...(iii)...(iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community. XVI, Ch. XVII or Ch. XXII of the IPC, or (ii)...(iii)...(iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community. u/s 3, where it appears to the DM (a) that any person is a Goonda; and (b) that his movements or acts in the district or any part thereof are causing, or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property and (c) that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their parson or property, the DM shall by notice in waiting inform him of the general nature of the material allegations against him in respect of Clauses (a), (b) and (c) and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. Then Sub-section (3) of Section 3 provides that the DM on being satisfied that the conditions specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) exist may by order in writing direct him to remove himself outside the district, or part, as the case may be, within such time as may be specified in the order. 7. It is thus clear that an order u/s 3(3) of the Act can be passed by the DM on his satisfaction that (1) the person is a Goonda (2) his movements in the district are causing alarm, danger or harm to persons and property and (3) that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him. The satisfaction of the DM contemplated by the Act must be based upon relevant material and not merely on gossip or rumour. The existence of relevant material is a condition precedent and is open to judicial scrutiny but the sufficiency of material is not justiciable. The police report, in my opinion, constituted relevant material. The report disclosed that the Petitioner was a person who habitually committed or attempted to commit offences and was generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community. He was thus a 'Goonda' as defined in the Act. The report also disclosed that the Petitioner's movements and acts were causing alarm and danger to parson and property and also that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence against him out of fear. He was thus a 'Goonda' as defined in the Act. The report also disclosed that the Petitioner's movements and acts were causing alarm and danger to parson and property and also that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence against him out of fear. The DM was, therefore, justified in passing an order u/s 3(3) of the Act. The fact that the Petitioner had been acquitted in a large number of cases did not alter the situation. The very fact that he was involved in such a large number of offences of serious nature like murder, robbery etc. was enough to induce a belief in the mind of the DM that the Petitioner was a 'Goonda' against whom an action u/s 3(3) of the Act was called for. Apparently the Petitioner was able to escape conviction because witnesses did not come forward to give evidence against him. To hold that action could be taken against a person under the Goondas Act only if he is convicted of all the offences of which he is charged would defeat the very object underlying the Act. If a person is convicted of_all the charges levelled against him there would be hardly any need for taking action under the Act. The need for an action arises only because a person commits offences but evades conviction due to the terror created by him in the locality so that no witness comes forward to depose against him. To secure conviction in a court of law one has to bring on record evidence in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, which may not be always easy. To arrive at a satisfaction under the Act the DM is not fettered by any technical rules of evidence. Section 8 of the Act specifically provides that the DM or the Commr. for the purpose of satisfying himself as to whether the conditions necessary for the making or confirmation of an order u/s 3 exist or not may take into consideration any evidence which he considers to have probative value and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act shall not apply. 8. The learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in Ram Newas alias Beta v. State of U.P. 1966 AWR 263. That was a case under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. 8. The learned Counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in Ram Newas alias Beta v. State of U.P. 1966 AWR 263. That was a case under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. It was held in that case that if the DM takes action against a person under the Preventive Detention Act on certain allegations of which he has been acquitted neither those allegations nor the evidence in their support can be called in aid. Now in that case the person concerned was charged with a large number of offences but he was acquitted because it was found that the cases set up against him were false and the evidence led by the prosecution was equally false. In some of the cases strictures were passed against the prosecution agency. That is not the case here. The Petitioner has been acquitted in a few cases because of want of evidence or because of the benefit of doubt given to him by the court. The order of the Commr. shows that the Petitioner was convicted twice. In a third case he was acquitted only because the court gave him the benefit of doubt. He had also found that in some cases the conviction of the Petitioner could not be secured for want of evidence. The case of Ram Newas is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. 9. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.