Back
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
Uma Nath Singh, T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ.
Champion R. Sangma - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
WA No. 28/2013 In WP(Crl) No. 4/2013
Decided On : 15-12-2014
The court held that the detention order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 (MPDA, 1995) was valid and the appellant/writ petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The court observed that the jurisdiction of preventive detention is "suspicious jurisdiction" based on suspicion and an action is taken with the view to preventing a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to certain activities enumerated in the detention order. Interference by a court of law at that stage must be an exception rather than a rule. The court further observed that the object of law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive and detention order is not an order for convicting the appellant/writ petitioner for an offence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/writ petitioner, a senior Police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Police (Home) Department in the State of Meghalaya, was detained under the MPDA, 1995 on the ground that he was a senior Police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Police (Home) Department in the State of Meghalaya and that he was a member of a dreadful terrorist organization called "Garo National Liberation Army" (GNLA) and that he was involved in various unlawful activities and crimes like extortion, kidnapping for ransom, ruthless murders of businessmen and traders, criminal intimidation to create a fear psychosis to suit their nefarious designs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the detention order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the MPDA, 1995 was valid and the appellant/writ petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
Issues: Whether the detention order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the MPDA, 1995 was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detention order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 3(1) of the MPDA, 1995 was valid and the appellant/writ petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The court observed that the jurisdiction of preventive detention is "suspicious jurisdiction" based on suspicion and an action is taken with the view to preventing a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to certain activities enumerated in the detention order. Interference by a court of law at that stage must be an exception rather than a rule. The court further observed that the object of law of preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive and detention order is not an order for convicting the appellant/writ petitioner for an offence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.06.2013 dismissing the W.P. (Crl) No. 4/2013 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the detention order dated 29.01.2013, order of the State Govt. dated 05.02.2013 for approving the detention order and also the order of the State Govt. dated 15.03.2013 for conforming the detention order and also for fixing the period of detention for three years w.e.f. 29.01.2013.
2. Heard Mr. VK Jindal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. KS Kynjing, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. S. Sen Gupta, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2.
3. The fact, sufficient for deciding the present appeal, is that the appellant/writ petitioner Shri. Champion R. Sangma is not an ordinary citizen and he was a senior Police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Police (Home) Department in the State of Meghalaya. The appellant/writ petitioner being the senior Police officer is not ignorant of the criminal law and other laws more particularly, the provisions under the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 (for short 'MPDA, 1995'). No doubt, the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled to all the rights, privileges and protections guaranteed under the Constitution of India and other laws framed there-under. On 30.07.2012, one Shri. K. Shabong, Sub-Inspector Special Cell, East Khasi Hills District lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge, Pynursla Police Station that he was deputed on 29.07.2012 to conduct Naka with the Special Cell Team at Umkrem "Pyrdiwah Axis" and at about 6:00 AM, one person who was seen suspiciously moving in the forested area was apprehended. After apprehension, he identified as Champion R. Sangma, Chairman of a dreadful terrorist organization called "Garo National Liberation Army" (GNLA) and that terrorist organization is also a banned organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short "U.A. (P) Act, 1967"). Based on the said ejahar, FIR i.e. Pynursla PS Case No. 25(7) 2012 under Sections 16, 38(1) and 38(2) of the U.A. (P) Act, 1967 and Section 12of the I.P. Act was registered. The appellant/writ petitioner was also arrested in connection with (i) Nongstoin Police Station Case No. 9(2) of 2012 under Sections 121A/353/307/34 IPC r/w. Section 10/13 of the U.A. (P) Act 1967 and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act and (ii) Nongstoin Police Station Case No. 10(2) of 2012 under Sections 121A/302/34 IPC r/w Section 10/12 of the U.A. (P) Act, 1967 and 27 of the Arms Act on 03.09.2012 and thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner is facing the session trial.
4. On 30.08.2012, the Investigating officer of the said Pynursla PS Case submitted charge sheet before the court of the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong. The appellant/writ petitioner also filed bail applications for the criminal cases (FIRs) against him. On 11.01.2013, in respect of two cases of Nongstoin Police Station, the bail was granted to the appellant/writ petitioner by the erstwhile Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench in Bail Application No. 100(SH)2012 and Bail Application No. 101(SH)2012, which were published widely in all leading newspapers. While the appellant/writ petitioner is in judicial custody, the District Magistrate in exercise of his power under Section 3(1) of the MPDA, 1995 passed the detention order dated 29.01.2013 on being satisfied that if the appellant/writ petitioner Shri. Champion R. Sangma (Ex DSP) is allowed to remain at large, he would act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order in the district and would contribute in consolidation of the militant organization which shall be a constant threat to the peace, prosperity and security of the law abiding and peace loving citizenry of the district and the St
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
