continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar, but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit. It connotes frequent commission of acts or omissions of the same kind. Because, the idea of 'habit' involves an element of persistence and a tendency to, repeat the acts or omissions of the same class or kind, if the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them, they cannot be treated as habitual ones. Learned counsel for the petitioner further; relied on the case of Imran@Abdul Qaddus Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2001(1) JIC 431 (All). In Imran's case (Supra), the Court relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 14 for defining the term 'Goonda'. It was further held in Imran's case (supra) that even the minority view which was taken in Vijay Narain's case (Supra) was that the word 'habitually' means 'by force of habit'. From the facts found above I find that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and he cannot be brought under the term 'Goonda' as defined under the Act.
