K. D. SHARMA, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision, filed by Ugam-Singh petitioner, against the order of the learned District Magistrate, Bikaner dated January 31, 1983, by which the petitioner was directed to remove himself out side the District of Bikaner for a period of six months commencing from 1-2-1983 under sub-section (3), clause (s) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and to desist from entering the district of Bikaner until the expiry of the said period.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition may briefly be stated as follows: A complaint under sec. 3 of the Act was filed by the Superintendent of Police through the Station House Officer, Kota-gate, Bikaner against the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Bikaner on August 80, 1979. It was alleged in the complaint that Ugamsingh petitioner is a resident of Rani-Bazar, Bikaner and is a Goonda, whose activities are causing alarm, danger and harm to the persons and proper and properties of inhabitants of whole of the Bikaner District. It was further alleged that the petitioner has been found habitual in intimidation of law abiding people by acts of violence or by show of force and by committing affray or breach of peace. It was also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner is habituated to make forcible collection of money from the shop-keepers along with his companions and that no person is prepared to come forward to make a complaint against him. The complaint further disclosed that several criminal cases are pending against him in the criminal courts at Bikaner such as cases of rioting, attempt to commit murder, Maar Peet and under sec. 25 of the Arms Act and under sec. 107. Cr. P. C. and that his externment from Bikaner District is necessary in the interest of peace and to prevent alarm, danger and harm to the persons or properties of inhabitants of Bikaner. The District Magistrate, Bikaner issued a notice to the petitioner under S. 3 of the Act directing him to appear before him and give his explanation in writing as to why an order should not be passed against him under Sec. 3 of the Act. In response to the notice, issued to him, the petitioner did not appear before the District Magistrate, Bikaner to give his explanation in writing. Hence, a warrant of arrest was issued against him to enforce his attendance before the District Magistrate, Bikaner. The warrant of arrest was executed against the petitioner and he was brought in custody before the District Magistrate, Bikaner. But even then, the petitioner did not give his explanation in writing as to why an order under S. 3 of the Act should not be passed against him. The District Magistrate, Bikaner then recorded the evidence of Bhanwarlal, S. H. O. and gave the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and to lead his evidence in defence. But the opportunity was not availed of by the petitioner and no evidence in defence was produced by him before the District Magistrate, Bikaner. The learned District Magistrate, thereupon, considered all the materials on record and on being satisfied that the conditions specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act exist passed the impugned order in writing as stated above. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has moved this Court in revision. I have heard Mr. N. S. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. S. Udawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. Mr. L. S. Udawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner fail d to file an appeal under section 6 of the Act against: the order of the District Magistrate, Bikaner within 15 days from the date thereof and so, the revision petition filed by him, cannot be entertained by this Court in view of the bar under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 401. Cr. P. C.
(3.) MR. N. S. Acharya on the other hand, urged that the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court suo-moto on the basis of its own knowledge gathered from any source whatsoever or on the application of the aggrieved person or of any other person and that such powers are not affected by the fact that the aggrieved person could not file an appeal against the order of the subordinate court, which is on the face of the record illegal, improper and unreasonable. In support of his contention, MR. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Ramesh Chandra J. Thakur v. A. P. Jhavari (1) and Pratap v. State of U. P. (2 ). I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. At the outset, I may observe that sub-section (2) of Sec. A of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that - "all offences under any other laws shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offence. " From a bare reading of this sub-section (2), it is obvious that where any enactment lays down a special provision only for some matters, its provisions are applicable in regard to those matters and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure will apply to all other matters on which that enactment is silent. In the instant case, the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act, 1975 provides a special procedure only for some matters like issue of notice under sec. 3 of the Act passing of an order under sub-section (3) of Sec. 3 of the Act, permission to return temporarily under section 4 and extension of period of order under section 5 of the Act etc. and therefore, its provisions must apply in regard to the aforesaid matters only. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure will apply to all other matters, on which the Rajasthan Control of Goondas Act is silent. Section 6 of the Act confers a right to appeal on a person aggrieved by an order made under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act. It provides that such person may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within 15 days from the date of the aforesaid order under sections 3,4 or 5 of the Act. The petitioner did not file an appeal under section 6 of the Act against the order of the District Magistrate, Bikaner passed against him under section 3 of the Act. In my opinion, under sub-section (4) of Section 401, Cr. P. C. , no proceedings by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the petitioner, who could have applied under section 6 of the Act. This Court, no doubt, has a right of revision suo-moto, upon its own knowledge, gathered from any source, whatsoever, or upon being moved by any aggrieved person or any other person if the order sought to be revised is ex facie illegal, improper or unreasonable, but in the instant case, 1 see no justification to entertain the revision petition at the instance of the petitioner, who could have appealed under section 6 of the Act, but has failed to do so for reasons best known to him. ;