Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. N. Katju and B. C. Jauhari, JJ.
RAJENDRA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
. . Of .
Decided On : 05/26/1982
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 - SECTION 3(2) - PUBLIC ORDER - LAW AND ORDER - DISTINCTION - GROUNDS OF DETENTION - INTERPRETATION - RELEVANCE TO PUBLIC ORDER - ANALYSIS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, on grounds of robbery, threatening witnesses, and harboring dacoits. The question before the court was whether the grounds of detention related to public order or law and order.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that all three grounds of detention related to public order and not merely law and order. The robbery was committed on a public highway, creating panic and terror among the villagers. The act of threatening eyewitnesses was part of a well-planned scheme to commit robberies and evade law enforcement. Harboring dacoits and providing them with assistance enabled them to commit dacoities successfully, disturbing public peace.
Issues: 1. Whether the grounds of detention related to public order or law and order. 2. Whether the robbery, threatening of witnesses, and harboring of dacoits affected public tranquillity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court distinguished between public order and law and order, stating that public order affects the community or public at large, while law and order affects only individuals. The court held that the acts in question, when considered in their context and circumstances, had the potential to affect the community and disturb public tranquillity. The robbery on a public highway, the threats to witnesses, and the harboring of dacoits all created fear and insecurity among the villagers, disrupting the even tempo of life in the community.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the detention of the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980.
( 2 ) THE question, referred is: do the grounds of detenion of the petitioner relate to public order or to law and order?
( 3 ) THE petitioner is detained under an order of the District Magistrate, Kanpur (Dehat) dated 31-12-1981 passed under Section 3 (2) National Security Act, 1980 (briefly the Act), with a view o preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
( 4 ) THE detention of the petitioner is based on the following three grounds No. 1, On 25th december 1981 at about 6-30p. rn, the petitioner and his associate Onkar Singh held up Chandra sekhar and Pati Ram residents of Mooda Khera, police station Sikandra District Kanpur Dehat, at pistol point on the public way known as Mughal Road near village Preetarnpura, while they were returning home after selling paddy in the market at Aurraiya, and forcibly relieved Chandra sekhar of his cycle, gold ring, wrist watch and Rs. 700/- cash and Pat) Ram of his cycle and Rs. 525/- cash and fired shots in order to overawe them. When, on hearing the reports of gun shots, the witnesses came running and challenged, the petitioner and his companion ran away firing shots. On the basis of the report lodged by Chandra Sekhar at police station Sikandra, case No. 221 under Section 394 I. P. C. , was registered on 25-12-81 to 9-10 p. m. which is pending investigation. No. 2 On 26th December 1981 at 6 p. m. the petitioner and his companion Onkar Singh approached Dulare and Phundi Lai, eye witnesses of the occurrence of robbery mentioned in ground No. 1, while they were looking after their fields in the jungle of village Alampur, police station Sikandara, and by show of pistols threatened to kill them if they dared to give evidence against them in the robbery case. The petitioner and his companion also told these persons to give affidavits in court in four days saying that they had not seen any occurrence and they were not present at the scene and in case they failed to do so they would be killed. A non-cognizable case under Section 506 I. P. C. , was registered at: police station Sikandara on 26-12-81 at 8-15 p. m. on the report of Phundi Lai. No. 3: On 27-12-1981 at about 5 p. m. the officer- in-charge police station Sikandara received information through an informer that some dacoits belonging to the gang of Lala Ram and Shri Ram would assemble at the house of the petitioner for committing dacoity and Onkar Singh would bring the gang. On receiving this information the station Officer reached near village Anwa with police force and surrounded the house. At about 8 p. m. the informer gave information that the dacoits had come and were hiding in the house of the petitioner. The Station Officer challenged the dacoits and asked them to lay down arms and surrender. At this 5 or 6 dacoits began to fire shots indiscriminately and ran towards the south. The police force also returned the fire, but the dacoits managed to escape taking advantage of darkness. The police force searched the house of the petitioner in his presence, and found only the petitioner and Onkar Singh present there. No member of the gang or illicit arm was available. The petitioner gave out that the dacoits had made a plan to commit dacoity at the houses of nathe Ram and Chandra Sekhar Katyar in village Jamalpur and had assembled at his house in pursuance of that plan. He also admitted that the members of the gang of Lala Ram and Shri ram often came to his house to take shelter and he helped them in every way and as a consideration for the same the dacoits paid him Rs. 200/- or Rs. 400/-now and then. The petitioner and Onkar Singh were arrested and on the basis of the oral report of the Station Officer of police station Sikandara case No. 225 unde
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
