KRISHNA ALIAS GITPITIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shrikrishan @ Satish @ Gitpitia has assailed the order of detention dated 27/10/1999 passed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act) inter alia, on the grounds that lodging of two or three FIRs will not amount to "prejudicial activities" nor would affect the "public order". Act best it could be a law and order problem for which FIRs have already been registered. The extraordinary provisions of the Act could not have been invoked due to the lodging of these FIRs. Secondly there was no evidence to prove that petitioner pressurised or intimidated the witnesses. That in the ground of dentention cases of 1984, 1986, 1990 and 1995 had been relied upon by the detaining authority, whereas in most of these cases he has either been acquitted or discharged.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points raised, we may have a look at the brief facts of this case. The Commissioner of Police found that petitioner was engaged in commission of crimes involving use of force and offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. This conclusion he arrived at from the facts available on record. A perusal of the record shows that FIR No. 159 dated 29/05/1984, FIR No. 587/84 dated 22/10/1984 P.S. Shahdara were registered under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act. FIR No. 60/86 dated 13/03/1986 and FIR No. 110/90 dated 16/05/1990 were registered under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act. FIR No. 488/93 was registered under Section 392/394/398/411/34 Indian Penal Code. FIR No. 112/95 was registered under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and FIR 481/98 was registered under Section 379/411 Indian Penal Code. These cases were registered against the petitioner at various Police Stations. Complaint in FIR No. 159/84 was that on 29/05/1984 petitioner was found threatening people near Bus Stand, Gandhi Nagar. He was apprehended by ASI Shyam Lal of P.S. Gandhi Nagar and on his personal search a Buttondar knife was recovered from his possession. He was, however, acquitted in this case. He was arrested in FIR No. 587/84 when a Buttondar knife was recovered from him. In that case also he had been acquitted. The case against him in FIR No. 60/86 under Section 399/402 Indian Penal Code was that on 13/03/1986 he was found along with his associates in Harsh Vihar Colony behind Jail premises planning to commit dacoity. A 12 bore country made pistol and two cartridges were recovered from his possession. On 16/05/1990 SI Sheoraj Singh of P.S. Gokulpuri while patrolling received a secret information on the basis of which petitioner was apprehended near pulia Ganda Nalla, Wazirabad Road, Gokulpuri. He was found in possession of Buttondar knife, The case of the prosecution in FIR No. 488/93 under Section 392/394/398/411/34 Indian Penal Code was that petitioner along with four persons committed robbery at knife point in Redline Bus on Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, They robbed one person of Rs. 50.00. Petitioner as well as his co-accused Charanjit @ Dabbu were arrested. The robbed amount was recovered from him along with one Buttondar knife. He has been discharged in that case. The case in FIR No. 112/95 was that petitioner as well as other accused Charanjit were in lockup in Karkardooma Court. He asked Charanjit to arrange Rs. 5,000.00 for him, to which Charanjit refused. He got annoyed and inflicted injury with blade on the face of the Charanjit. He has been acquitted in this case. FIR No. 488/98 was registered on the complaint of one Subhash Chand Garg. The petitioner was arrested because he along with other boys robbed Mr. Garg of Rs. 40,600.00- and gold chain at the knife point in DTC but near Shastri Park, Seelampur and also robbed another passenger Vipin Kumar Rai of Rs. 25,000.00 FIR No. 481/99 was registered on the complaint of Anand Singh where he stated that while he was travelling by DTC bus from Durgapuri Chowk to ISBT, petitioner picked his pocket up and deprived him of Rs. 850.00. This he did along with his two accomplices Ved Prakash and Islamuddin. All the three accused were overpowered by PCR staff when alarm was raised.

(3.) On account of his involvement in criminal activities which directly and indirectly effected public peace and thus caused alarm, danger and harm to the society. His activities and in particular his robbing the bus passengers were found by the authorities to be prejudicial to public peace and order. On account of his activities it was found that petitioner was desperate and dangerous and further it was believed that he would engage again in the commission of offences affecting the society. It was in this backdrop that impugned order under Section 3(2) of the Act was passed.