Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, CJ, and Vishal Mishra, J.
Abdul Mahmood Rangrez v. Union of India & Others
Writ Petition No. 19623 of 2022 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 15.11.2022
(1) Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 -- S. 3 -- subjective satisfaction of detaining authority -- how to be arrived at -- there has to be application of mind -- grounds of detention should clearly indicate history of petitioner with regard to offences committed by him -- grounds of detention should also indicate consideration of detaining authority so far as order of bail is concerned. [Para 7
(2) Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (1) and 3 (2) -- detention order -- petitioner already in custody by virtue of FIR lodged against him -- may not be relevant for order of detention -- that itself cannot constitute ground to dissuade detaining authority not to pass order of detention -- order of detention is passed in order to prevent future commission of crimes -- FIR is lodged for offences that have already taken place -- these are two concepts altogether -- held -- even if he is in custody for offences that he has committed, detaining authority is entitled to pass order of detention. 2022 (3) JLJ 79 (DB)clarified.
[Paras 8 & 10
¼1½ pksjcktkjh fuokj.k vkSj vko';d oLrq iznk; vf/kfu;e] 1980 && /kkjk 3 && fujks/k izkf/kdkjh dk O;fDrijd lek/kku && dSls gks && euksfu;ksx gksuk vko';d && fujks/k ds vk/kkjksa ls ;kph }kjk fd, x, vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa ;kph dk bfro`Ùk Li"Vr% nf'kZr gksuk pkfg, && fujks/k ds vk/kkjksa ls tekur vkns'k ds lacaèk esa Hkh fujks/k izkf/kdkjh dk euu minf'kZr gksuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 7
¼2½ pksjcktkjh fuokj.k vkSj vko';d oLrq iznk; vf/kfu;e] 1980 && èkkjk 3¼1½ rFkk 3 ¼2½ && fujks/k vkns'k && ;kph ds fo#) nkf[ky izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ds dkj.k ;kph dk igys ls vfHkj{kk esa gksuk && fujks/k vkns'k ds fy, lqlaxr ugha Hkh gks ldrk && fujks/k vkns'k ikfjr ugha djus ds fy, fujks/k izkf/kdkjh dks grksRlkfgr djus gsrq ;g vius&vki esa vk/kkj xfBr ugha dj ldrk && fujks/k vkns'k Hkfo"; esa vijk/k jksdus ds fy, ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ mu vijk/kksa ds fy, nkf[ky dh tkrh gS tks igys gh gks pqds gSa && ;g nksuksa loZFkk i`Fkd~ ladYiuk,¡ gSa && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && og igys gh fd, x, vijk/kksa ds fy, vfHkj{kk esa gksa rc Hkh] fujks/k izkf/kdkjh fujks/k vkns'k ikfjr djus dk gdnkj gSA 2022¼3½ ts ,y ts 79 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ Li"VhÑrA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 10
ORDER
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order bearing No.08/P.B.M./R.D.M./2022 dated 5.7.2022 passed by the respondent No.3/Collector-cum-District Magistrate, District Jabalpur.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents, on information that the petitioner and his son are illegally stocking essential commodities in their house, made a search on 6.6.2022. As per respondents, 116 bags of grains were stored in the house. It was intended to be transported elsewhere. Four bags were also found stored in a vehicle. The respondents visited the fair price shop belonging to the petitioner’s son on 7.6.2022 and noted the discrepancy of the stocks. Thereafter the order of preventive detention was issued under section 3(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short “the Act”), ordering detention for a period of six months in terms of the impugned order of detention dated 5.7.2022. Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed.
3. Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are virtually no allegations against the petitioner. That if at all the case of the respondents is to be accepted, the case can only be made out against his son and not him. That even otherwise an F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner and others in Crime No.270 of 2022 at Police Station Kotwali, Jabalpur for offences punishable under sections 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 7(3) of the Essential Commodities Act. He was thereafter taken into custody. Sub-sequently, he moved an application seeking for bail in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.32191 of 2022 wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur vide order dated 1.8.2022 granted bail to the petitioner. Hence, he pleads that none of these facts have been considered by the detaining authority. Hence, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. He further places reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.12072 of 2022 dated 14.6.2022 in the case of Sanjay Kurmi (Patel) v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others. He contends that the orders of detention were quashed therein primarily on the ground that since an F.I.R. has already been lodged, the question of ordering preventive detention would not arise for consideration.
4. The State have filed their reply. They have disputed the pleadings of the petitioner. It is their case that the petitioner was involved in various offences as mentioned in the chart Annexure R-4 (at page 105 of their return), which is in Hindi and on being translated in English, reads as
| Sr. No. | Crime No. | Police Sation | Offences under section | Date of registration | if under investigation the current status | Date of submission of challan the Court | Whether bail granted or not | Decided or not | If not decide, next date |
| 1. | 375/2014 | Omti | 147, 188 IPC | 19.7.2014 | No | 26.12.2017 | -- | -- | No record found |
| 2. | 53/2019 | Belbabh | 294, 323, 506, 341,34 IPC | 20.1.2019 | No | 3.4.2019 | -- | -- | Next date 9.9.2022 |
| 3. | 233/2020 | Omti | 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC | 23.3.2020 | No | 22.12.2020 | -- | -- | Next date 17.8.2022 |
| 4. | 270/2022 | Kotwali | 406,34 IPC and7/3 of E.C. Act | 6.6.2022 | No | Under investigation | -- | -- | Under Investiga tion |
That the petitioner is a habitual offender. That he is involved in stocking of essential commodities against the provisions of the Act. That his son is absconding. That the petitioner was found at the place where the raid was conducted and the essential commodities were recovered from the house of the petitioner
Preventive detention requires timely action and sufficient grounds; delays and lack of evidence can render such orders illegal.
The court emphasized the need for swift action and due process under the Essential Commodities Act, highlighting that preventive detention should not substitute the punishment required under the law.
Undue delay in passing a detention order under the PBM Act can render the order illegal, violating constitutional rights.
The necessity for swift action and sufficient evidence in cases of preventive detention under the Essential Commodities Act.
Detention orders must be issued promptly; significant delays without new evidence render them illegal, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Delay in passing a detention order under preventive laws renders it illegal if not justified, violating the constitutional right to timely review.
Delays in preventive detention orders and in considering representations violate constitutional rights, rendering such orders illegal.
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
