Externment Cannot Be Based on a Single Stale Criminal Case, Allahabad HC Rules, Quashing ‘Goonda’ Order Against Man Acquitted in Earlier Case

The petitioner challenged an order dated 11 May 2026 passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda under Section 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 (“Goonda Act”), declaring him a “Goonda” and externing him from District Gonda for six months.

The order relied principally on two criminal cases: Case Crime No. 905 of 2010 under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, and Case Crime No. 430 of 2020 under various provisions of the IPC, the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, along with a beat information report.

The petitioner appealed under Section 6 of the Goonda Act. Before the Commissioner, he produced a judgment dated 26 August 2017 showing that he had been acquitted in Case Crime No. 905 of 2010, contending that only the solitary 2020 case remained pending.

The Commissioner nevertheless dismissed the appeal on 12 August 2026, treating both criminal cases and the beat information report as pending and verified against the petitioner.

The State did not dispute the petitioner’s acquittal in the 2010 case.

1. Whether the petitioner could validly be declared a “Goonda” under Section 2(b)(i) of the Goonda Act on the basis of two criminal cases when he had already been acquitted in one of them and only one case remained pending?

2. Whether the alleged involvement in a solitary criminal case from 2020, considered in 2026, established the habituality, continuity and societal impact necessary for action under the Goonda Act?

3. Whether the beat information report, allegedly verified without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, could be relied upon to declare him a Goonda?

4. Whether the Commissioner’s appellate order was vitiated by non-application of mind for treating the petitioner as involved in the 2010 case despite his acquittal?

The Court applied Section 2(b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, particularly Section 2(b)(i), which requires habitual commission, attempt or abetment of specified offences, and Section 3(1), which authorises preventive action against a person satisfying the statutory requirements.

It held, following Imran alias Abdul Quddus Khan v. State of U.P., Shankar Ji Shukla v. Ayuqt Allahabad Mandal, Lalani Pandey v. State of U.P., Govardhan v. State of U.P., Satendra v. State of U.P., Bharat Singh v. State of U.P. and Rahul v. State of U.P., that “habitually” requires repeated, persistent and similar acts demonstrating continuity and propensity; one or two isolated acts are insufficient.

The Goonda Act is preventive, not punitive, and must be used sparingly in clear cases involving public disorder, hardened or habitual criminals, or persons who cannot effectively be dealt with under the ordinary penal law.

The Court further applied the principle that an acquitted criminal case cannot constitute the basis for treating a person as involved in that offence, and that reliance on adverse material without a fair opportunity of hearing violates natural justice.

The District Magistrate’s conclusion rested on two criminal cases, but the petitioner had already been acquitted in the 2010 case in 2017; therefore, that case could not establish his criminal propensity or habitual conduct.

After excluding the acquitted case, only the 2020 prosecution remained pending. A solitary criminal case did not demonstrate the repeated, persistent and continuous conduct required under Section 2(b)(i), particularly when the petitioner was already being dealt with under the ordinary criminal law.

The six-year gap between the alleged 2020 incident and the 2026 externment order also defeated the required nexus between the alleged conduct and the preventive action.

The Court additionally found that the beat information report could not be relied upon because it had not resulted in a criminal case and the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to contest the inquiry based upon it, violating natural justice.

The Commissioner’s order expressly acknowledged the acquittal but nevertheless treated the 2010 case as pending, demonstrating non-application of mind.

The writ petition was allowed.

The District Magistrate’s order dated 11 May 2026 declaring the petitioner a Goonda and externing him from District Gonda for six months, and the Commissioner’s appellate order dated 12 August 2026 dismissing his appeal, were quashed.