- (1.) G. Malaviya, J. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 16. 10. 1996 issued to him by A. D. M. Ad ministration, Karvi, district Banda under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goonda Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as Act ).
(2.) SRI Jagdish Singh Sengar says that the impugned notice does not confirm to the requirements as were set up by the judg ment of the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Ji Pandey v. State of U. P, 1981 Criminal Law Journal page 1983. His contention is that the "general nature of material allegations" as contemplated under Section 3 (1) (d) have not been provided to the petitioner by the said notice. We have examined the present case and have also gone through the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Ji Pandey (supra) reported in 1981 Cr. L. J. 1983. However, we are unable to agree with the contention of Sri Sengar that the notice does not confirm to the requirement as set out by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court. In para 7 of the judgment by the Full Bench in Ram Ji Pandey v. State of U. P the following observation is relevant:- "the word allegation means statement or assertion of facts. Thus the notice under Section 3 (1) should contain the essential assertions of facts in relation to the matters set out in clauses (a) (b) and (c) of sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. It need not refer to any evidence or other particulars or details. The means of witnesses, and persons who may have made complaint against the person against whom action is proposed to be taken or the time, date and place of the offence committed by the person. There is a distinction between the "general nature of material allega tions" and particulars of allegations. In the former the notice need not give any details of the allega tions instead the requirement of law would be satisfied if the notice contains a general statement of facts which need not contain any details or particulars. "
(3.) THEREFORE, Ram Ji Pandey's case (supra) makes it clear that the notice need not contain details or particulars but should provide general statement of facts. In other words all that is needed by the notice is that the person concerned understands as to on what grounds the district authority proposes to take action against him. Once we examine the present notice we are satis fied that the "general nature of material allegations" as supplied to the petitioner under the said notice quite clearly convey the grounds on which the action against the petitioner has been proposed. Sri Sengar learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon the observa tion of the Full Bench relating to the Mahbub Khan's case which has been approved by Supreme Court. Placing reliance on the notice as quoted in para 10 of the judgment Sri Sengar contended that Mahbub Khan was made aware of the facts in the following manner:- (1) You way-lay, rob and extort money from the persons as the point of knife and under threats of violence. (2) You demand money from the persons and on their refusal to pay you beat them. (3) You consume eatables from the place of public entertainment without payment and when legal dues are demanded you beat the person.;