<p>Lucknow: In a significant decision, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/allahabad-high-court#google_vignette">Allahabad High Court</a> has said that merely on the basis of one or two criminal cases, a person cannot be branded as a ‘goonda’.</p><p>A single bench comprising Justice Sandeep Jain gave the ruling while allowing a petition challenging proceedings initiated against him under the UP Control of Goondas Act 1970.</p><p>‘’Merely on the basis of one or two criminal cases, a person cannot be branded as a "goonda". Such punitive action of the state causes irreparable damage to the reputation of such a person and his family,’’ the Court said.</p>.Punitive demolitions persist in UP despite Supreme Court ban on bulldozer action: Allahabad High Court.<p>The court said that though the act did not prescribe any fixed number of offences required to classify a person as a "goonda," nor did it stipulate a specific time gap between offences for determining habituality, the Supreme Court had held that for invoking the provisions of such preventive legislation, the person must be shown to be a habitual offender, and if offences were committed with a long time gap, the element of habituality might not be established.</p><p>The records revealed that two criminal cases had been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr.</p><p>The petitioner had challenged the orders of Meerut divisional commissioner as well as of the Additional District Magistrate, Bulandshahr whereby proceedings under section 3(1) of the Goonda Act culminated in an externment order against him for a period of six months.</p>
<p>Lucknow: In a significant decision, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/allahabad-high-court#google_vignette">Allahabad High Court</a> has said that merely on the basis of one or two criminal cases, a person cannot be branded as a ‘goonda’.</p><p>A single bench comprising Justice Sandeep Jain gave the ruling while allowing a petition challenging proceedings initiated against him under the UP Control of Goondas Act 1970.</p><p>‘’Merely on the basis of one or two criminal cases, a person cannot be branded as a "goonda". Such punitive action of the state causes irreparable damage to the reputation of such a person and his family,’’ the Court said.</p>.Punitive demolitions persist in UP despite Supreme Court ban on bulldozer action: Allahabad High Court.<p>The court said that though the act did not prescribe any fixed number of offences required to classify a person as a "goonda," nor did it stipulate a specific time gap between offences for determining habituality, the Supreme Court had held that for invoking the provisions of such preventive legislation, the person must be shown to be a habitual offender, and if offences were committed with a long time gap, the element of habituality might not be established.</p><p>The records revealed that two criminal cases had been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr.</p><p>The petitioner had challenged the orders of Meerut divisional commissioner as well as of the Additional District Magistrate, Bulandshahr whereby proceedings under section 3(1) of the Goonda Act culminated in an externment order against him for a period of six months.</p>