MATHUR, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties matter is taken up for final disposal.
(2.) THE appellant aggrieved of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27. 2. 2001 has preferred this appeal on the ground that he has been granted relief only in part. According to him the entire proceedings against him under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Goondas Act) being without jurisdiction ought to have been quashed instead of simply quashing the direction against the appellant to report before the S. H. O. , Police Station, Baran. It is submitted by Mr. Bhati that taking advantage of that order the respondents have now asked him to report at Police Station, Desuri. According to the appellant the proceedings against him under the Goondas Act is without jurisdiction as he is not a Goonda within the meaning of Sec. 2 (b) of the Goondas Act, inasmuch as he has not been found on not less than three occasions to have committed the offences as referred in sub- clauses (i), (vi) or (viii) within a period of six months immediately preceding the commencement of an action u/sec. 3 of the Act. It is pointed out that the notice under the Goondas Act was given to the appellant on 8. 2. 96. THE last case, which was registered against him was F. I. R. Case No. 147 dated 16. 7. 95. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the appellant committed any offence as mentioned under Sub-clause (b) of Sec. 2 within a period of six months immediately preceding to the commencement of the action u/sec. 3. In a reply submitted in the special appeal, the respondent has stated that the proceedings commenced u/sec. 3 of the Goondas Act when the complaint was filed by the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur before the competent Magistrate on 28. 9. 95. Just preceding from the date 28. 9. 95 he committed the referred offences on three occasions within a period of six months. Thus, the core question, which arises for consideration is the crucial date of commencement of action under Sec. 3, for computing the period of six months i. e. the date of the notice u/sec. 3 or the filing of the complaint before the Executive Magistrate by the Superintendent of Police. In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to read Sec. 2 (b) and Sec. 3 (1) of the Goondas Act, which are reproduced as follows:- "2 (b) :- "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 offence, punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ACT XLV of 1860) or u/secs. 290 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960; or (ii) has been convicted under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956); or (iii) has been convicted not less than twice under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (Rajasthan Act No. 11 of 1950); or (iv) has been convicted not less than twice under the Opium Act, 1978 (Central Act No. 1 of 1978); or (v) has been convicted not less than twice under Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (Rajasthan Ordinance No. 48 of 1949); or (vi) has been found habitual passing indecent remarks to or teasing women or girls; or (vii) has been found habitual in intimidation of law abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force; or (viii) is habituated to commit affray or breach of peace, riot, or who is habituated to make forcible collection of subscription or threatening people for illegal pecuniary gain for himself or for others, or who is habituated to cause alarm, danger, or harm to persons or property. Explanation:- The word habitual' or habituated' wherever used in relation to a person in this clause means a person, who during a period within six months immediately preceding the commencement of an action u/sec. 3 has been found on not less than three occasions to have committed the offences or acts, as the case may be, referred to in sub-clauses (i), (vi), (vii) or (viii ). " "sec. 3 (1) - Where it appears to the District Magistrate; (a) that any person is goonda; and (b) (i) that his movements or acts in district or any part thereof are causing, or are calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to persons or property; or (ii) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is engaged or about to engage, in the district or any part thereof, in the commission or abetment of any offence or act specified in sub-clause (i) to (viii) of clause (b) of Sec, 2; 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 person or property; the District Magistrate shall by notice in writing inform him of the general nature of the material allegations against him in respect of above clause (a), (b) and (c) and give him a reasonable opportunity of tendering an explanation regarding them. " The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied on decisions of this Court in Sankla Ram vs. State & Anr. (1), Sohan Lal vs. State (2), and Karimaben K. Bagad vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. None of the authorities are directly on the issue involved. The Goondas Act has been enacted for proper and effective maintenance of public order. Thus, the proceedings under the Act are not the casual or the routine proceedings. It does not contemplate a stale proceeding. According to the respondents the crucial date is 28. 9. 95 when the Superintendent of Police submitted a complaint before the District Magistrate. It is significant to notice that the notice has been issued by the District Magistrate on 8. 2. 96 i. e. after more than four months from the date of submitting the complaint. If the proceedings are initiated in Goonda Act, which is a Special Act for the maintenance of the public order, in such a casual manner, the very purpose of the Act shall be frustrated. The Act contemplates prompt action. The action can be said to have commenced only when the competent authority has applied his mind for issuing a notice under the Goondas Act. The words employed in sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 3 are "where it appears to the District Magistrate. The words used, appeared in sub-clause (i) are of great significance. The District Magistrate makes up his mind to issue a notice when he has applied his mind and prima facie finds that matter requires a notice to a person who is a Goonda. Thus, in our view, the crucial date is when a notice is issued under Sec. 3 of the Goondas Act.
(3.) IN the instant case, in the notice dated 8. 2. 96, there is reference of three following cases:- (1) F. I. R. No. 124/21. 6. 95 (2) F. I. R. No. 125/22. 6. 95 (3) F. I. R. No. 147/16. 7. 95 Taking 8. 2. 96, the crucial date, none of the F. I. R. cases falls within six months preceding the date of commencement of the action u/sec. 3. Thus, the proceedings against the appellant u/sec. 3 of the Goondas Act initiated by notice dated 8. 2. 96 are wholly without jurisdiction and void in law. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel are not being considered as this appeal deserves to be allowed on single jurisdictional ground alone. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 27. 2. 2001 directing the Executive Magistrate to pass afresh order is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the judgment of the Divisional Commissioner dated 26. 10. 98, order of the Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur (City) dated 30. 9. 99 in Cr. Case No. 1550/95 and the entire proceedings initiated under notice dated 8. 2. 96 are quashed and set aside. . ;