S.K.Gangele, J.

( 1. ) Heard. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of detention, Annexure P-1 dated 22nd April 2009.

( 2. ) The Superintendent of Police submitted a memorandum dated 2-4-2009 to the District Magistrate, Morena for detention of the petitioner under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980(hereinafter called as the Act of 1980). It has been mentioned by the Superintendent of Police in the memorandum that the petitioner was a notorious criminal and he had been involved in number of criminal offences. Due to the criminal activities of the petitioner, the persons were not willing to come forward to record their evidence in criminal cases and due to the activities of the petitioner, the peace of the area was in danger. The Superintendent of Police has mentioned details of nine criminal cases registered against the petitioner under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code which are as under :-

( 3. ) The District Magistrate as per the memorandum of the Superintendent of Police has recorded the statements of the residents of localities and also perused the record and passed an order of detention under Section 3 of the Act of 1980 of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate mentioned nine grounds for detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1980. The grounds are based on the basis of registration of criminal cases against the petitioner. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board and the Board also recommended the detention of the petitioner under the Act of 1980, and consequently, the State Government vide order dated 18th May, 2009 affirmed the detention order of the petitioner, passed by the District Magistrate.

( 4. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of detention of the petitioner is illegal because the Superintendent of Police did not submit the facts that the petitioner was acquitted in number of criminal cases in his memorandum to the District Magistrate, hence, true and proper information had not been supplied by the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate has formed a wrong satisfaction about the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of Act of 1980. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Geeta Sahu vs. District Magistrate, Shahdol and others, reported in 2002 (2) MPLJ 618.

( 5. ) Contrary to this learned counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that after considering the material on record and the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police and registration of criminal cases against the petitioner, the District Magistrate has formed a positive opinion that the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1980 is necessary. The opinion has been formed after perusal of the record, hence, there is no merit in the petition. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied on the following judgments of the Honble Supreme Court :

(1) (2008) 3 SCC 613 (State of Maharashtra and others v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande); (2) 2010 (I) MPHT 331 (DB) (Jugaroo alias Virendra vs. State of M.P. And others); and (3) AIR 1992 SC 687 (Smt. Victoria Fernandes v. Lalmal Sawma and others).

( 6. ) The District Magistrate passed the order of detention of the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1980, which is as under :

3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons. (1) xxxxxxxxx (2) The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Sub-section, "acting in any