- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned standing counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner has sought for quashing of notice dated 2nd July, 1992 (Annexure 6 of the writ petition) issued under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Gonads Act. This Court earlier stayed the proceedings under the said Act. The ground for challenge is that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind before issuing the said notice. Petitioner has been acquitted of the various criminal cases mentioned in the said notice, hence the said notice is devoid of any merit and is liable to be set aside, With reference to the various cases, referred in the notice, one of the cases in which the petitioner has been acquitted has not been mentioned, in the counter-affidavit ibis fact is admit ted, but the reason for this is on account of fact by that time intimation of acquittal was not received by the respondent. However, it has been stated that Case Crime No. 100/91 under Sections 323, 325 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is still pending. The impugned notice further records that acquit tals in various crime cases against the petitioner were on account of the fear caused to the witnesses by the petitioner, who is a hardened criminal. From the aforesaid exchange of affidavit it is clear that only one casa is pending and in the rest of cases the petitioner has been acquitted. However, the notice contains two marts. First regarding various cases and their number under which petitioner was prosecuted though resulting into acquittal except one as aforesaid. Second regarding threat extended by the petitioner and fear caused in the mind of the witnesses not to come forward to depose against him. This fear psychosis in the mind of witnesses if true erodes the very foundation of punishing a criminal for his criminal act. This would be well within the ambit of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urges, there is no indication in the notice nor there is any evidence to show that the petitioner has actually, threatened the witnesses. If there was such fear caused by the petitioner various first information reports would not have been tiled against him. This contention has no merit. At this stage we are not examining evidence, only whether the District Magistrate while issuing notice under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act committed any jurisdictional error or issued notice without satis fying himself on the basis of the record before him. We come to the conclu sion, there was no jurisdictional error committed by the authority in issuing the impugned notice. Mentioning of various cases against the petitioner indicates the background of the petitioner. The District Magistrate was satisfied on the basis of the report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhanai, dated 19th May, 1992 and came to the conclusion that the various acquittals were on the basis of the threat extended by the petitioner causing fear in the mind of the witnesses. This by itself is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the authority to issue notice under Section 3 of the Act. We are not adjudicating on the merits of the case as it would be a matter to be decided by the authorities after opportunity to the petitioner. Thus it cannot be said that the authority did not apply his mind or in issuing notice ha committed any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the present petition fails. However, this is without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise his defence in the proceedings before the said authority in pursuance of the impugned notice. With the aforesaid observations the petition is dismissed. Costs on parties. Petition dismissed. .;