Poaching and smuggling activities can be considered offenses against society, causing serious concern and environmental imbalance, justifying detention under the National Security Act.

This petition was preferred by this petitioner Inam against the order of detention dated 21-5-2002 passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called as nsa ). The petitioner along with his companion, namely, Meharban were arrested on 23-5-2002 while they were waiting for the poor, protected animals, in the Shivalik Range Sanctuary to fall pray to the trap laid by them. They had fire-arms in their possession. Earlier on 22-5-2002 the Forest Officer, Mohand Range, Shivalik, P. S. Biharigarh, Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, had sent a letter to S. O. P. S. Biharigarh, pointing out that in his protected forest region for the last few days some armed persons were cited. He suspected them to be either forest wood smugglers or poachers. Their activities created panic and fear amongst the residents of the area as also amongst the forest staff. These people fear entering into the jungle. An enquiry was conducted by a Head Constable of P. S. Biharigarh accompanied with force and the suspicion of the Forest Officer was found to have substance.

2. As earlier discussed, on 23-5-2002 the petitioner was arrested along with Meharban when they were in the process of trapping protected animals. They had prepared special nets for the purpose. On their arrest they also confessed about their past activities and promised to get recovered the skins of Guldar & Bijju and horns of Sambhar. These articles were recovered from the house of the two accused including the petitioner on the same day. Offences were registered under Section 307 IPC vide Crime No. 68 of 2002 for opening fire on the police when they approached them, Crime No. 69 of 2002 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Crime No. 70 of 2002 under the same section and Crime No. 71 of 2002 under Sections 9/49/49-A/51 of the Forest Animals Protection Act.

3. From the grounds of detention it also appears that they were involved in number of offences including Section 110 Cr. PC. , Section 3 (2) of the U. P. Goonda Act, Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act and some offences of the Indian Penal Code and Forest Act. In all their involvement was noticed in 10 such cases.

4. The charge was that the petitioner was running a gang and was committing the offence of killing the protected animals by stealthily entering into the Shivalik Forest Sanctuary in order to obtain their skins, bones, paws, teeth and horns. They also engaged themselves into stealing of precious wood from the forest. Thus, they were endangering not only the lives of the protected animals but also stealing away the precious wood from the forest for themselves. Their activities allegedly caused commotion in the area of the said protected forest. The residents of the area were struck with panic and fear.

5. The detention order, as earlier discussed, was passed on 31-5-2002. The papers for approval were sent on 31-5-2002 itself to the State Government. It were received on 3-6-2002. The detention order was approved by the State Government on 5-6-2002.

6. The grounds of detention categorically state and the petitioner had a right to represent. He can represent to the Secretary (Home), Government of India, Secretary (Home), Government of U. P. and Advisory Board. The petitioner sent his representation through the Superintendent (Jail) to the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, on 13/15-6-2002, i. e. 15 days after the detention order was served on him along with the grounds of detention. The same was received by the detaining authority on 15-6-2002. It was sent by the District Magistrate to the Government on 22-6-2002 and was received by the State Government on 24-6-2002. It is available from the counter- affidavit filed by Sri C. P. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, U. P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. The representation was rejected by the Government on 28-6-2002. A communication of the same was made to the petitioner by radiogram and otherwise also on 2-7-2002.

7. It is contended by l