‘Goonda’ Label Alone Cannot Justify Externment; All Three Conditions of Section 3 Must Be Met: Rajasthan High Court

On a complaint of 05.11.2019 by the SHO, Police Station Udaimandir, proceedings under the Goondas Act were started against the petitioner before the DCP, Jodhpur (para 3). By an order of 31.03.2021 in Criminal Case No. 37/2019, the DCP, Jodhpur West directed him to extern from the Jodhpur Police Commissionerate area, to mark weekly attendance at the office of the SP, Barmer for one month, and not to enter the Commissionerate without the competent authority's permission (para 1). The order rested on a single fact: two convictions under the gambling ordinance, each ending in a fine. It recorded no other conviction and no pending case (para 3). The petitioner challenged the order in a criminal writ petition (paras 1-2).

Section 2(b) defines a ‘goonda’ through eight sub-clauses; sub-clause (v) covers a person convicted not less than twice under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (para 4). Under Section 3, three conditions must exist before externment: the person is a goonda; his movements or acts cause, or are calculated to cause, alarm, danger or harm, or there are reasonable grounds to believe he is engaged or about to engage in an offence listed in Section 2(b); and witnesses are unwilling to give evidence against him because they fear for their safety or property (paras 5-6). The word ‘and’ after clause (a) makes clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3(1) mandatory as well (para 7). The order under challenge said nothing about clauses (b) and (c) and rested on one finding, that the petitioner is a goonda (para 7). Designation as a goonda is not enough to oust a person from an area, so the order was bad in law (paras 8-9). The satisfaction under clause (b) must rest on cogent material. Under clause (c), the authority must place strong material on record and take evidence, not act on bald or vague statements in the complaint (para 9).