Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. S. VARMA, S. C. MATHUR, G. B. SINGH
RAM PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
W. P. 1557 Of 1985
Decided On : 01/16/1986
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT - Detention - Grounds - Severability - S. 5-A - Effect - Non-consideration of revocation of detention order passed against co-accused - Effect - Whether vitiates entire detention order.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was detained under the National Security Act, 1980 (the Act) on three grounds. The first ground related to an incident that took place in 1981 and was also the subject matter of a previous detention order passed against the petitioner in 1981, which was later quashed on the recommendation of the Advisory Board. The second and third grounds related to incidents that occurred in 1985. The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground that the first ground was stale and the second and third grounds were not supported by evidence and were found to be false in regular trials held during the detention period.
Finding of the Court:
1. Section 5-A of the Act creates a fiction that an order of detention passed on two or more grounds shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds. Accordingly, an order of detention survives or falls on the strength or weakness of its own ground and not on the strength or weakness of the grounds contained in any other order or orders. 2. If an order of detention is based on several grounds and one or more of the grounds is or are found to be invalid, the entire order will not become invalid provided there is at least one ground which is valid. 3. The non-consideration of the revocation of the detention order passed against a co-accused affects only the ground arising from the occurrence in which both were co-accused. The other grounds are independent of the said occurrence, and, therefore, the entire order is not rendered invalid. 4. An occurrence which was the subject-matter of trial, may be available for preventive detention, but that would be when the detaining authority asserts that the trial ended in acquittal because the witnesses were terrorised by the detenu and on account of the terror spread by him fair trial was not possible and is not possible in respect of the cases still pending against him.
Issues: 1. Whether the first ground of detention was stale and could not be used to justify the detention order. 2. Whether the second and third grounds of detention were supported by evidence and could be used to justify the detention order. 3. Whether the non-consideration of the revocation of the detention order passed against a co-accused vitiated the entire detention order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Ground No. 1 is stale and cannot be made the basis of detention. 2. In respect of incidents Nos. 2 and 3 mentioned in Annexure 2, the case was taken for trial before Courts. The Courts held that the prosecution failed to prove the cases. The result of the findings recorded by the Sessions Courts is that the incidents such as are alleged never took place. 3. The non-consideration of the revocation of the detention order passed against a co-accused affects only the ground arising from the occurrence in which both were co-accused. The other grounds are independent of the said occurrence, and, therefore, the entire order is not rendered invalid.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 3-2-1985 contained in Annexure No. 1 was quashed.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been referred to us for decision in pursuance of an order dated 20-11-1985 passed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Honble S. S. Ahmad and Honble Brijesh Kumar, JJ. In order to appreciate the circumstances in which the petition has been referred to this Full Bench, facts will have to be stated in detail.
( 2 ) THE petition has been filed by Ram Prasad Chaudhary against his detention tender the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ). The order of detention is dated 3-2-1985 and is Annexure 1 to the petition. The ground, containing the reasons for detention are dated 3-2-1985 and have been filed as Annexure 2 to the petition. The petitioners case is that he has been the President of D. M. K. Party and had contested the election to Lok Sabha in December, 1984 against Chandra Shekhar Trupathi, a Congress candidate. The petitioner was defeated in the election but, after the elections were over in December, 1984, he intended to contest Uttar Pradesh Assembly Election to be held in March, 1985. For this purpose he declared his intention to contest the election from Kaptanganj Constituency of District Basti. The petitioner further stated that as soon as he came from Delhi on 5-2-1985 to file his nomination papers from Kaptanganj Constituency, he was arrested at Basti and sent to jail and was served with the detention order under the National Security Act. As stated earlier, Annexure 1 is the detention order. Annexure 2 is a copy of the grounds of detentions and the documents which were supplied to him. The petitioners case is that he was previously detained under the provisions of National Security Ordinance, 1980 on 11-1-1982 but the detention order was revoked on the advice of the Advisory Board and he was released from jail on 27-2-1982. The petitioner further states that a perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the first ground mentioned in the grounds of detention relates to an incident dated 3-3-1981 which gave rise to Crime No. 31 of 1981. The incident relating to Crime No. 31 of 1981 which is ground No. 1 in the present detention order was also one of the grounds for his previous detention under the provisions of the Act vide detention order dated 3-8-1981. The grounds of previous detention order are filed as Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition. A perusal of Annexures 2 and 3 indicates that ground No. 6 of the previous detention order contained in Annexure 3 is ground No. 1 of the present detention order dated 3-2-1985. The petitioners ease is that as the Advisory Board quashed his detention in regard to the incident dated 3-3-1981, the said ground is irrelevant for the purpose of his second detention. In regard to ground No. 2 of the detention order, the petitioners case is that one Ram Ugrah Singh lodged a first information report in respect of incident dated 20-1-1985 which was registered as Crime No. 18 of 1985. The petitioners case is that Ram Ugrah Singh is not an eye-witness to the murder case of Gomti Singh and it has been falsely alleged in the first information report that he was a witness in the case. A true copy of the first information report regarding the murder of Gomti Singh is filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition to prove that Ram Ugrah Singh was not a witness in that case. The contention of the petitioner is that the incident dated 20-1-1985 does not, in any manner, affect the public order and, therefore, the detention on that ground is liable to be set aside. In regard to third ground which relates to an incident dated 31-1-1985 which gave rise to Crime No. 15 of 1985, the petitioners case is that it has been initiated due to political rivalry. In regard to third ground Ram Tej, who was informant in the case, has filed an affidavit in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Basti stating that he never lodged any report against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the police authorities had coerced Ram Tej
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
