ORDER

1. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu. The detenu is working as a salesman in a fair price shop under the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 located at Village Bilha Code No.3314003, Tahsil Shahpura, District Jabalpur.

2. On 7.4.2022, the officers of the Crime Branch informed the District Supply Controller regarding the PDS of wheat and rice sacks were assorted at different locations. A raid/search was made in the house of one Lakhan Patel located near Bhedaghat Chowk, Jabalpur. They seized 150 sacks of wheat and 3 0 sacks of rice. An FIR was registered in Crime No.146/2022 at Police Station, Bhedaghat for offences punishable under sections 406 and 34 of IPC along with sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Thereafter, the detenu sought for bail before this Court. By the order dated 7.5.2022 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.22964 of 2022 he was released on bail. The impugned order of detention was passed by the competent authority namely the District Magistrate under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short "the Act"). Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed.

3. Shri Naman Nagrath learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner's counsel submits that the order of detention is illegal. That the grounds of detention do not indicate or justify the action sought to be taken in putting the petitioner under preventive detention. That the detenu is only a salesman. That he is not concerned with any of the offences as sought to be made out by the respondents. That even otherwise the ingredients of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 3 of the Act are not made out in the instant case. Hence, he pleads that the petition be allowed by releasing the detenu from custody.

4. The same is disputed by Shri B.D. Singh learned Government Advocate by relying on the reply filed by him. He contends that the object of the State is to prevent black-marketing and, therefore, these actions are imminent. That various persons are involved in hoarding of stocks of commodities which they are not entitled to. That in order to prevent the commission of any offences as defined under the Act or under the Indian Penal Code the provisions of the said Act are invoked and, therefore, orders of preventive detention are made. That there is substantial material to indicate the excessive hoarding of commodities by the detenu. Hence, the order of detention does not call for any interference.

5. Heard learned counsels.

6. The order of detention is passed under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 3 of the Act. The same pertains to preventive detention with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community etc. The same has further been defined in the explanation to sub section (1) of section 3 of the Act.

7. On considering the same, we do not find that any one of the clauses there would stand applicable to the case of the petitioner. That if the contention of the State is to be accepted, then the offence of hoarding has since already been committed and, therefore, the question of ordering a preventive detention would not arise for consideration. A preventive detention order is to be passed in order to ensure that the detenu does not commit the purported crime. If he has already committed the purported crime then he has to be charged under the relevant provisions of law. Therefore, we find that the order of detention lacks these essentialities. It is submitted that when the detenu went to the Police Station to furnish the order of the bail and comply with the conditions it was then that he was served with the copy of the detention order. Therefore, it presupposes that the order of detention was passed much earlier. The learned Government Advocate submits that even though that may be a fact the detenu was a