Back
1982 Supreme(Del) 130
High Court Of Delhi
JAGMOHAN ALIAS JAGGU - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 25 of 1982
Decided On : 04/29/1982
R.N.KAPOOR, S.T.SINGH
The burden of proving that a person is a threat to public order and cannot be effectively dealt with under the ordinary criminal law lies with the detaining authority.
Headnote:
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT - SECTION 3(2) - DETENTION - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS - SHIFTING OF RESIDENCE - CONTINUANCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Jagmohan @ Jaggu, challenged his detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (NSA). He argued that he had shifted his residence from Delhi to Modinagar and was no longer involved in criminal activities in Delhi. The respondents, however, contended that the petitioner continued to operate in Delhi in his criminal activities despite shifting his residence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been involved in numerous criminal cases in Delhi, including theft, house trespass, and robbery. However, the court also noted that the petitioner had not been involved in any criminal activity in Delhi since July 9, 1980, and that he had shifted his residence to Modinagar, where his wife was employed as a school teacher.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's detention under the NSA was justified despite his shift in residence and lack of recent criminal activity in Delhi. 2. Whether the respondents had discharged the burden of proving that the petitioner continued to indulge in criminal activities in Delhi and that he could not be effectively dealt with under the ordinary criminal law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents had failed to establish that the petitioner continued to indulge in criminal activities in Delhi or that he could not be effectively dealt with under the ordinary criminal law. The court noted that the petitioner had been convicted in numerous cases in the past, but that he had not been involved in any criminal activity in Delhi for over a year. The court also noted that the petitioner had shifted his residence to Modinagar and that his wife was employed there as a school teacher.
Final Decision: The court set aside the petitioner's detention order, holding that it was bad in law.
( 1 ) JAGMOHAN @ Jaggu has challenged his detention under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (herein called the Act ). The order of detention bearing (No. F. 91/d/la/judl.) 81/1161-63 was pas. sed by the then Commissioner of Police on 17th September, 1981, and was confirmed by the Administrator on 31st October, 1981, whereby under Section 13 of the Act it was directed that the petitioner be detained for 12 months from the date of his detention, namely 21st September, 1981.
( 2 ) AT the outset it may be noticed that the petitioner s allegations are that he was arrested from his residence at Modinagar where he had been living for the last over three years. Accroding to him he has not been involved in any criminal case in Delhi after 9th July, 1980. The respondents admit that the petitioner was arrested from Modinagar and that no case after 9th July, 1980, was registered against him at Delhi.
( 3 ) IT is the admitted case of the parties that the last two cases mentioned in the Appendix annexed with the grounds of detention were registered against the petitioner at Police Station Modinagar (UP)-one was registered vide FIR No. 733 on 30th November, 1980, for an offence under Sections 399/402/307, Indian Penal Code and the other vide FIR No. 786 on the same day for an offence under the Arms Act. Both these cases are pending under investigations.
( 4 ) THE main argument of the petitioner is that he is no longer residing in Delhi; he has taken up a permanent residence along with his family at Modinagar where he is living as a peace-loving citizen and therefore the order to detain him in Delhi is bad. The respondents while admitting that he lived in Modinagar where his wife is employed as a school teacher state that nevertheless the petitioner continued to operate in Delhi in his criminal activities.
( 5 ) ON merits the case of the respondents appears to be that the petitioner is a roost desperate character. He was involved in as many as 34 criminal caies and was convicted in 22 cases. Apart from the two cases which are pending investigation at Modinagar as per the appendix annexed with the grounds of detention, three or four cases are pending against him for trial in Delhi Courts. In the counter-affidavit it is averred that the petitioner s activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence the order of detention under the Act.
( 6 ) THE averment of the petitioner that after his arrest by Police Station Modinagar on 30th November, 1980, in the two cases mentioned ear- Her, he was lodged in judicial custody at Abdullapur and District Mecrut till 30th June, 1981, on which date he was transferred to Central Jail, Tihar, Delhi, is not disputed. That he was released on bail in July, 1981, in the cases which are pending in Delhi and thereafter had been residing at Modinagar till his impugned detention is also not disputed. As noticed above, the respondents case appears to be that although he has shifted his residence from Delhi yet he continued to indulge in criminal activities at Delhi. However, it is admitted that no case after 9th July, 1980, has been registered against the petitioner within the Union of Territory of Delhi.
( 7 ) WE have gone through the list of cases annexed with the grounds of detention.
( 8 ) PETITIONER s criminal activities came to light in the year 1965. Most of the cases registered in that year and in the following two years related to theft of scooters/bicycles. No case was regiltered against him in the years 1968 and 1969. The only F. I. R. in the year 1970 against the petitioner was for the offence of lurking house trespass and theft of Rs. 475. 00. This case was filed as untraced. In the two cases which were registered in the year 1971 at Police Station Paharganj-one under the Arms Act and the other for the offence under Sections 394 and 325, Indian Penal Code, he was acquitted. One other case registered on 22nd May, 1972, for an offence under Section 457 rea
