The satisfaction of the District Magistrate and the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police are crucial in justifying a detention order under the National Security Act, 1980.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the detenu petitioner has challenged the pregnability of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Gwalior (respondent No. 2) taking the petitioner in detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short 'the Act').

2. Vide order dated 23rd April, 2009 (Annexure P-1) passed in Case No. NSA/07/2009 by exercising powers conferred to the District Magistrate under Section 3 (2) of the Act, the petitioner has been detained because his liberty is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

3. The Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 3) vide its letter dated 31-3-2009 (Annexure R-1) submitted and informed the District Magistrate that looking to the criminal and antisocial activities of the petitioner resulting into disruption of tempo of life of public at large, it is recommended to proceed against him under the provisions of the Act. In the said letter, not only the details of 14 cases were highlighted, but a separate list indicating the criminal record of the detenu was annexed.

4. On receiving the said recommendation of Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, the learned District Magistrate summoned the relevant record and also recorded the statements of residents of the locality concerned namely Krishnakant Shivhare and Prakash Pandey apart from the statement of Town Inspector of Police Station Dabra Shri Rakesh Gupta. The learned Magistrate after having perused the recommendations, the statements and the material available on record, arrived at a subjective satisfaction that looking to the criminal activities of the petitioner, his physical presence is prejudicial to maintain the public order and hence by invoking the powers conferred to it under Section 3 of the said Act, the impugned order of detention was passed on 23rd April, 2009.

5. Needless to say, the matter was also referred to the Advisory Board who concurred with the view of the learned District Magistrate and justified the detention order of learned District Magistrate and forwarded its decision to the State Government. In this regard, Annexures R-5 and R-6, dated 29th April, 2009 and 18-5-2009 respectively have been placed on record.

6. The contention of Shri Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that learned JMFC, Dabra, in Case No. 1067/08 (State through Police Station, Dabra v. Jugaroo and Ors.), vide its judgment dated 30-5-2009, acquitted the petitioner from the charges punishable under Sections 327/34, 294 and 506-B of IPC. In another case, which was pending before the learned JMFC in Case No. 1066/2008 (State through Police Station, Dabra Distt. Gwalior v. Jugaroo and Ors.), the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner on 17-4-2009 from the charge punishable under Sections 327/34 of IPC. During the course of arguments, a certified copy of the judgment dated 22-7-2009 passed by the learned JMFC, Dabra, in Case No. 586/2008 acquitting the petitioner under Sections 327/34, 294 and 506-B of IPC, has been submitted. Learned Counsel has also submitted another order dated 9-9-2009 passed by the learned JMFC, Dabra, in Case No. 499/2008 and has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges punishable under Sections 324/34, 504 of IPC. The contention of learned Counsel is that merely because umpteen criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, it may be a ground to hold that he is violating the law and order, but his activity cannot be stretched upto the extent that his liberty has become prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore the action of the District Magistrate invoking the jurisdiction under the Act is wholly unwarranted under the law. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on several decisions of this Court, they are Ramkhiladi Gurjar v. Statle of M.P. and Anr. W.P. No. 296/2008 (Gwalior), decided on 26-6-2008, Sunil Tiwari v. Stat