Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 155 (RAJ)

Rajkumar alias Kara v. State of Rajasthan

2014-01-10

AMITAVA ROY, VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr.Pradeep Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner had instituted S.B.Criminal Writ Petition No.73/2013 assailing the judgment and order dated 15.10.2013 passed by the court of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur South in case No.15/2011 directing his externment from the limits of Jaipur for a period of three months, in exercise of powers under the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the impugned judgment and order, the challenge has been negated. 3. The pleaded case of the appellant/writ petitioner, in short, is that he is a resident of Mansarovar, Jaipur (South). The SHO, Police Station, Mansarovar, Jaipur (South) filed a complaint No.12130 dated 29.9.2010 before the District Collector, Jaipur, which was eventually registered as case No.15/2011 and laid before the court of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (South) for adjudication. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant/writ petitioner was a habitual offender indulging in gambling, business of illegal liquor, assaults, abduction, robbery and murder since 1993, for which, he had been arrested many a times, and that, he had been continuously involved in such illegal activities. The complaint disclosed that as many as 12 cases had been registered against him since 1993, out of which, in 3 proceedings under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Order (for short, hereafter referred to as 'RPGO'), he had been convicted and fined. That six other cases under the Excise Act, Indian Penal Code, RPGO etc. were still pending, was mentioned. The complaint also disclosed that by his illegal activities, he had created an environment of alarm and terror, so much so, that no person in the locality has the courage to make any complaint against him or be a witness thereto, out of fear. The complaint also alleged that unless the unauthorized activities of the appellant/writ petitioner were decimated, untoward incidents could ensue. 4. Notice was issued to the appellant/writ petitioner of the complaint, to which he did submit a reply. Therein, though he contended that he could not be termed as a "Goonda", in terms of Section 2(b) of the Act, he admitted that out of six cases registered against him under RPGO, in four, he had been punished with fine. According to him, he was acquitted in three cases. Therein, though he contended that he could not be termed as a "Goonda", in terms of Section 2(b) of the Act, he admitted that out of six cases registered against him under RPGO, in four, he had been punished with fine. According to him, he was acquitted in three cases. That he was confident that he would be acquitted in other cases also, was also mentioned. 5. The learned court below, on a scrutiny of the complaint and the other materials on record and after hearing the appellant/writ petitioner, passed the order dated 15.10.2013 directing his externment, as above, for a period of three months. In recording this finding, the learned court below did also note that the appellant/writ petitioner had admitted the charge levelled against him. On an analysis of the facts narrated in complaint as well as the dossier submitted in support thereof, the learned trial court recorded its satisfaction about the correctness of the allegations and the proof thereof. 6. The appellant/writ petitioner, being aggrieved, approached this Court, and as stated hereinabove, by the judgment and order impugned in the instant appeal, his writ petition was rejected. As the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge would reveal, it was noticed inter alia that the appellant/writ petitioner had admitted that he had been punished in four cases under the RPGO, and that therefore, he came within the purview of the definition of "Goonda" provided under Section 2(b) of the Act. That the appellant/writ petitioner had stated that notice had been issued to him, and that, he had submitted a reply, was recorded as well. The learned Single Judge distinguished the decisions referred to in the judgment and order and declined to interfere with the order dated 15.10.2013, recording that the same had been rightly passed, after hearing him and considering his reply. 7. Mr. Mathur has urged, with reference to the reply submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner, that he does not come within the coils of the definition of "Goonda" in terms of Section 2(b) of the Act, and that, as the mandatory prerequisites of Section 3 are non-existent in the present facts, the order of externment made, is patently illegal. As the learned Single Judge had overlooked this vital legal defect, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with, he urged. As the learned Single Judge had overlooked this vital legal defect, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be interfered with, he urged. The learned counsel emphasised that the appellant/writ petitioner was a law abiding citizen, and that, he had been engaging himself in creative activities i.e.exhibition etc., in coordination with his wife. No other plea was raised. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Rana Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2002(2) WLN 269 . 8. On a plain perusal of Section 2(b) of the Act, coupled with the admission of the appellant/writ petitioner that he had meanwhile been convicted and punished in four cases under the RPGO, in our view, squarely brings him within the definition of "Goonda", as contemplated therein. Vis-a-vis the demur of non-compliance of the essential pre-conditions for application of Section 3, we are of the opinion that the contents of the complaint with regard to his conduct and the environment of alarm created thereby in the locality, the belief that he would continuously engage therein, and that, the people of his area have been reduced to awful state of alarm and panic, so much so, that none was willing to come forward to give evidence against him, having been accepted by the learned trial court, we are of the unhesitant opinion that no interference on this count is warranted. The appellant/writ petitioner was given notice of the proceedings, and he had submitted his reply, clearly admitting his conviction and punishment in four cases under the RPGO, and thus, in terms of Section 2(b)(v), he definitely did come within the definition of "Goonda". 9. On a consideration of the materials on record and the analysis made by the learned trial court of the essential facts as well as the documents supporting the same, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 15.10.2013 does not call for any interference, and thus, the learned Single Judge did rightly decline to intervene. In the contextual facts, the decision of this Court in Rana Ram(supra) is of no assistance to the appellant/writ petitioner. The action taken, according to us, is in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Act. 10. The appeal therefore, stands dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected. 11. In the contextual facts, the decision of this Court in Rana Ram(supra) is of no assistance to the appellant/writ petitioner. The action taken, according to us, is in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Act. 10. The appeal therefore, stands dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected. 11. It is made clear that in this adjudication, we have not decided, as it was not necessary, the aspect of maintainability of this appeal. This determination would therefore, not signify that this appeal was construed to be maintainable in form, even otherwise.Appeal dismissed. *******