Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D.K.Trivedi, R.P.Nigam
MANGOO TYAGI
Versus
ADHIKSHAK JANPAD KARAGAR MORADABAD
Decided On : 02 December 1997
W. P. No. 392 (H/c) of 1997
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT - SECTION 3(2) - DETENTION ORDER - QUASHING - RELEVANT PAPERS NOT PLACED BEFORE DETAINING AUTHORITY - DETENTION ORDER VITIATED - PUBLIC ORDER NOT AFFECTED - DETENTION ORDER QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, challenged the detention order on the grounds that relevant papers were not placed before the detaining authority and the incident in question was a matter of law and order, not public order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detaining authority did not consider the petitioner's version of the incident and that only one version was placed before the authority. The court also found that the incident in question was a matter of personal animosity and did not affect public order.
Issues: 1. Whether the detention order was vitiated due to the non-placement of relevant papers before the detaining authority? 2. Whether the incident in question was a matter of public order or law and order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is affected if only one version of the incident is placed before it and the other version is ignored. 2. The court held that an incident occurring due to personal animosity and not affecting the local community or public at large is a matter of law and order, not public order.
Final Decision: The court quashed the detention order and issued a mandamus to the authorities to release the petitioner forthwith.
The petitioner who is in detention, has invoked the writ juris diction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned detention order dated 20-4-97 passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad under Section 3 (2) of Nation al Security Act.
2. The order of detention was served on the detenu on 22-7-97 when the detenu was in jail in connection with case crime No. 52/97.
3. From the perusal of the detention order, it is evident that the District Magistrate, Moradabad was satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was neces sary with a view to prevent the petitioner/detenu from acting in any man ner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The impugned detention order of the petitioner illuminated for his involvement in two cases. The first ground relates to case crime No. 292/96, under Sections 148,302/149 and 147, IPC and the second ground relates to case crime No. 52/97 under Section 307, IPC. The case of the prosecution in respect of case crime No. 292/96 is against six persons including the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner was present at the time of the incident and on his instigation one Hem Raj Singh fired and killed Surendra Singh who was a student of Gramodai Inter Col lege Gangeshwari. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the Manager of Gramodai Inter College, Gangeshwari. It is alleged that Surender Singh was murdered on the instigation of the petitioner. A report was lodged at case crime No. 292/96. On the other hand, it is also not disputed that Hem Raj Singh who allegedly killed Surender Singh also tried to lodge a first information report before the police but no report was registered, then he moved an application before the C. J. M. under Sec tion 156 (3), Cr. P. C. The CJ. M. concerned passed an order directing the police to register and investigate the case and in compliance of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, a case under Section 292 (A)/96 was registered. It is also not disputed that Hem Raj Singh had also received several injuries and he was medi cally examined. It is also not disputed that the petitioner surrendered before the court in November 1996 and in this case all the accused except Hem Raj Singh were enlarged on bail. Initially, the petitioners bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 17-11-97 but finally the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the High Court on 20-1-97. Here, it may be pointed out that no action has been taken by the authority concerned unto April 1997 on the basis of this incident. It is further alleged that another incident al leged to have taken place on 12-4-96 at about 6 p. m. in the evening and a case at crime No. 52/97 was registered against the petitioner under Section 307, IPC. It is stated that seeing Jaspal Singh, the petitioner stated that "as you had or ganized a procession of the students against him for the murder of a student of Gangeshwari college, therefore, I will see you" and saying this, he fired at Jaspal Singh. Jaspal Singh did not receive any injury but it is alleged that due to this incident the public order was disturbed. The petitioner was in jail in respect of this incident and therefore, the impugned detention order was passed and served on the petitioner.
4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the im pugned detention order is on the face of it, illegal and void because the relevant papers have not been placed before the detaining authority as well as before the State Govt. at the time of its approval. In support of his contention, he pointed out that in case crime No. 292/96 admittedly a cross version was registered and the petitioners as well as the co-accused per sons were also enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the counter version as well as the bail application and orders passed on the said application were necessary and relevant for the det
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
