Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu and Anand Pathak,JJ.
Kalla alias Surendra Jat v. State of M. P. & Others
Writ Petition No. 4499 of 2021(Gwalior);
Decided on 9.4.2021
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (3) -- maintainability of writ petition -- detention order -- petitioner absconding -- pre-execution stage -- petition maintainable. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 496 and (2008) 16 SCC 14 followed. [Para 13]
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (3) -- scope of writ jurisdiction -- interference in detention order -- subjective satisfaction of detaining authority cannot be looked into by High Court as appellate authority -- scope of interference is narrow and limited. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 496, (2008) 16 SCC 14, AIR 1967 SC 1441 and (1975) 2 SCC 81 followed. [Para 14]
(3) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3(3) -- expressive function of punishment or preventive measure like detention under NSA -- is both retributive and utilitarian. (1982) 2 SCC 403, (2004) 7 SCC 467, (1972) 3 SCC 845, (1969) 1 SCC 10, (1970) 1 SCC 98 and (1972) 1 SCC 498 followed. [Para 19]
(4) Criminal Jurisprudence -- broken windows theory -- crime and disorder are strongly interrelated -- targeting minor disorder expected to reduce occurrence of more serious crime -- if a window in building is broken and left unrepaired, all windows will soon be broken. [Para 21]
(5) Practice (Criminal) -- liberty of individual vis-a-vis collective interest of community -- reconciliation between "personal liberty" vis-a-vis "public peace" and "public order"is need of the hour -- otherwise public order, social peace and development would be sacrificed at altar of lawlessness, misgovernance and private retribution. (1987) 2 SCC 684 and (2002) 3 SCC 598 followed. [Para 23]
(6) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.353 -- offence is not against public servant only -- it is a challenge to public order and administration of justice because public servant is duty bound to serve public and maintain public order. [Para 25]
(7) National Security Act, 1980 -- S. 3 (3) -- Penal Code, 1860
-- S. 353 -- petitioner appears to be habitual offender -- absconding -- his criminal disposition spans around two decades -- faced trial for offences u/ss. 302, 307 and 353 of IPC along with other offences -- convicted in one -- given benefit of doubt in another -- compromise reached in some -- long trail of criminal cases of different nature -- even though resulted in acquittal, cannot be taken lightly -- subjective satisfaction of detaining authority cannot be interfered -- petition dismissed. AIR 1974 SC 816 followed. 2015 (2) JLJ 140, 2015 (I) MPWN 37 (DB), ILR (2008) MP 797, 2014 (3) MPLJ 256, 2013 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 547, (1989) 2 SCC 370 and 2000 (4) MPHT 482 (DB) distinguished. ILR (2010) (II) Del. 550, 2002 STPL 12860 Delhi, 1982 STPL 4030 Allahabad and 1988 STPL 5970 Rajasthan referred to. [Paras 24 to 31]
¼1½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vfèkfu;e] 1980 & èkkjk 3¼3½ & fjV ;kfpdk dk pykus ;¨X; g¨uk & fuj¨èk vkns'k & ;kph Qjkj & fu"iknu iwoZ çØe & ;kfpdk pykus ;¨X;A 1992 lIyhŒ ¼1½ ,l lh lh 496 rFkk ¼2008½ 16 ,l lh lh 14 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13½
¼2½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuqPNsn 226 & jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vfèkfu;e] 1980 & èkkjk ¼3½ & fjV vfèkdkfjrk dh O;kfIr & fuj¨èk vkns'k esa gLr{ksi & fuj¨èk vfèkdkjh d¢ O;fDrijd lekèkku d¨ mPp U;k;ky; vihy çkfèkdkjh dh Òkafr ugha ns[k ldrk & gLr{ksi dh xqatkb'k ifjfer v©j lhfer gSA 1992 lIyhŒ ¼1½ ,l lh lh 496] ¼2008½ 16 ,l lh lh 14] , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 1441 rFkk ¼1975½ 2 ,l lh lh 81 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14½
¼3½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vfèkfu;e] 1980 & èkkjk 3¼3½ & naM vFkok vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu fuj¨èk dh Òkafr fuokjd mik; dk vfÒO;Dr dk;Z & çfrdkjkRed v©j mi;¨xh] n¨u¨a gSaA ¼1982½ 2 ,l lh lh 403] ¼2004½ 7 ,l lh lh 467] ¼1972½ 3 ,l lh lh 845] ¼1969½ 1 ,l lh lh 10] ¼1970½ 1 ,l lh lh 98 rFkk ¼1972½ 1 ,l lh lh 498 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19½
¼4½ nkafMd fofèk 'kkL= & VwVk >j¨[kk fl)kar & vijkèk v©j vO;oLFkk dk fufcM+ varjlacaèk gS & x©.k vO;oLFkk d¨ y{; cukus ls vfèkd xaÒhj vijkèk esa deh çR;kf'kr & ;fn Òou dk ,d >j¨[kk VwV tk, v©j mls ejEer fd, fcuk N¨M+ fn;k tk, r¨ 'khÄz gh vU; >j¨[ks VwV tk,axsA ¼iSjk 21½
¼5½ çFkk ¼nkafMd½ & leqnk; d¢ lkewfgd fgr d¢ eqdkcys O;fDr dh Lora=rk & ^^nSfgd Lora=rk^^ d¢ eqdkcys ^^y¨d 'kkafr^^ v©j ^^y¨d O;oLFkk^^ d¢ eè; lkeatL; le; dh ekax gS & vU;Fkk fofèkghurk] nq%'kklu v©j oS;fDrd çfrdkj dh osfn ij y¨d O;oLFkk] lkekftd 'kkafr v©j fodkl dh cfy p<+ tk,xhA ¼1987½ 2 ,l lh lh 684 rFkk ¼2002½ 3 ,l lh lh 598 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 23½
¼6½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 353 & vijkèk d¢oy y¨d lsod d¢ fo#) ugha g¨rk & og y¨d O;oLFkk v©j U;k; ç'kklu d¨ pqu©rh gS D;¨afd y¨d lsod turk dh lsok djus v©j y¨d O;oLFkk cuk, j[kus d¨ drZO;c) gSA ¼iSjk 25½
¼7½ jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vfèkfu;e] 1980 & èkkjk 3¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 353 & ;kph vkH;kfld vijkèkh çrhr g¨rk gS & Qjkj & mldh vkijkfèkd ço`fÙk dk foLrkj n¨ n'kd¨a esa & vU; vijkèk¨a d¢ lkFk naM lafgrk dh èkkjk 302] 307 v©j 353 d¢ vèkhu vijkèk¨a d¢ fy, fopkj.k dk lkeuk fd;k & ,d esa n¨"kfl) & ,d vU; esa lansg dk Qk;nk fn;k x;k & dqN esa le>©rk gqvk
& fÒUu&fÒUu çÑfr d¢ nkafMd ekey¨a dh yach J`a[kyk & Òys gh n¨"keqfDr esa ifjf.kr gq,] lgt esa ugÈ fy, tk ldrs & fuj¨èk çkfèkdkjh d¢ O;fDrijd lekèkku esa gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 816 vuqlfjrA 2015 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 140] 2015 ¼1½ eŒçŒ ohDyh u¨V~l 37 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½] vkb ,y vkj ¼2008½ ,eŒihŒ 797] 2014 ¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 256] 2013 ¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts ¼fØŒ½ 547] ¼1989½ 2 ,l lh lh 370 rFkk 2000 ¼4½ ,e ih ,p Vh 482 ¼[kaM U;k;ihB½ çÒsfnrA vkb ,y vkj ¼2010½ 2 fnYyh 550] 2002 ,l Vh ih ,y 12860 fnYyh] 1982 ,l Vh ih ,y 4030 bykgkckn rFkk 1988 ,l Vh ih ,y 5970 jktLFkku fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 24 ls 31½
ORDER
Pathak, J. -- 1. Present petition is under Article 226 of Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari taking exception to the order dated 8.2.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Guna (Annexure P/1) whereby provision of section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been invoked and petitioner has been directed to be detained for 3 months at Central Jail, Gwalior. Petitioner is absconding and therefore, petition is at pre execution stage.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is resident of District Guna and is living within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It appears from the pleadings that for last almost 20 years petitioner faced different criminal cases/charge-sheeted for alleged commission of different offences, particulars of which are placed with the petition and on the basis of those cases as well as apprehension of the authorities that petitioner may commit breach of public order, proceedings were initiated under the Act against the petitioner which culminated into passing of impugned order dated 8.2.2021 by the District Magistrate, District Guna.
3. From the pleadings, it appears that on 19.1.2021, Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali District Guna (respondent No.4 herein) recommended to Superintendent of Police, Guna (respondent No.3) to invoke the provisions of section 3(3) of the Act since the petitioner is having criminal history of around 20 cases and is a threat to Public Order. On such recommendation, respondent No.3 initiated the proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act and list of 20 cases was catalogued along with recommendation about his conduct to breach public order and referred to the District Magistrate, Guna on 19.1.2021 itself. District Magistrate, Guna (respondent No.2 herein) after considering the fact situation, recommendations and thereafter the statement of prosecution witness (Station House Officer of Police Station Kotwali, Guna) passed the impugned order of detention in exercise of power under section 3(3) of the Act. Being crestfallen by the said order of detention, petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that order of detention is being passed on the basis of old and stale cases in which petitioner has already been acquitted way back (except one or two cases) and these stale cases are not at all sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Act. He referred different orders passed in this regard by the trial Courts in which after full fledged trials, he has been acquitted, albeit in some cases on the basis of settlement and in some cases on the basis of witnesses being turned hostile. Even in some cases, after investigation, police did not find the case for prosecution and therefore, closure reports were filed in those cases. Therefore, sheet anchor of the arguments of the petitioner is that detention order is based upon old and stale cases. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in the case of Rinku alias Kuldeep Shukla v. State of M.P. and others, [2015(2) JLJ 140], Rajendra Kumar Jain v. State of M.P. [2015 (I) MPWN 37 (DB)], Shanker Mihani v. State of M.P. and others, ILR [2008] M.P. 797, Dhanwan s/o Balchandra Pardi v. State of M.P. and others, 2014(3) MPLJ 256, Bhaiya alias Bhaiyalal alias Arvind v. State of M.P. [2013 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 547] to support his submission.
5. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 did not supply the correct information regarding cases registered against the petitioner to respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Guna and therefore, non placement of material before the authority, vitiates the proceedings. He relied upon (1989) 2 SCC 370 {Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal v. Police Commissioner and another} and 2000 (4) MPHT 482 (DB)
{ Smt. Geeta Sahu v. District Magistrate, Shahdol and others}.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also raised the ground that earlier externment proc
Preventive detention – Expressive function of punishment or preventive measure like detention under NSA are both retributive and utilitarian.
In case of a person in custody a detention order can validly be passed (1) if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he has reason believe on the ....
Preventive detention requires clear, compelling reasons linked to public order; mere apprehensions are insufficient.
: Preventive detention – Mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action under Preventive Detention Laws.
The detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 must be based on material showing a threat to public order, and the detaining authority must consider all relevant....
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
