Ugamsingh vs State of Rajasthan and Others

K.D. Sharma, C.J.—This is an application in revision, filed by Ugamsingh 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 (a) 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.

The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition may briefly be stated as follows:-A complaint u/s 3 of the Act was filed by the Superintentdent of Police through the Station House Officer, Kote-gate, Bikaner against the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Bikaner on August 30, 1979. It was alleged in the complaint that Ugamingh petitioner is a resident of Rani-Bazar, Bikaner and is a Goonda, whose activities are causing alarm, danger and barm to the persons 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 frocible 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 u/s 25 of the Arms Act and u/s 107, Cr PC. 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 u/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 explantion in writing as to why an order u/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 Magsitrate, Bikaner. The learned District Magistrate, there upon, considered all the materials on record and on being satisfied that the conditions specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Subsection (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 prsocutor for the State, has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner failed to file an appeal u/s 6 of the Act against the order of the District Magistrate, Bikaner with in 15 days from the date there of and so, the revision petition filed by him, can not be entertained by this Court in view of the bar under Sub-section (4) of Section 401, Cr.P.C.

Mr. N.S. Acharya, on the other hand, urged that the revisional jurisdiction can be efercised 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 at he aggrieved person should not file an appeal against the order of the sub-ordinate 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 Rameshchandra J Rameshchandra J. Thakkar Vs. Assandas Parmanand Jhaveri, State of Maharashtra, and Pratap Vs. State of U.P. and Others,

I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. At the out set, I may observe that Sub-section (2) of Section 4 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 offences.

From bare reading of this subsection (2) , it is obvious that where any enactment Jays down a special provision only for same matters, its provisions are applicable in regard to these 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 u/s 3 of the Act passing of an order under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, permission to return temporarily u/s 4 and extension of period of order u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 3, 4, or 5 of the Act. The petitioner did not file an appeal u/s 6 of the Act against the order of the District Magistrate, Bikaner passed against him u/s 8 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 appealed u/s 6 of the Act. This Court, no doubt, has a right of revision suomoto upon its own knowledge, gathered from and source, whatsoever, or upon being moved by any aggrieved person or any other person, if the order sought to be revised is ex facte illegal, improper or unreasonable but in the instant case, I see no justification to entertain the revision petition at the instance of the petitioner, who could have appealed u/s 6 of the Act, but has failed to do so for reasons best known to him.

Hence, the revision petition can not be entertained and it is hereby dismissed.