GYAN CHANDRA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of detention under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) was passed against the petitioner on July 2, 2000 by the District Magistrate, Gonda. Before order could be executed, the present writ petition was filed on July 19. 2000. praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash the impugned order dated July 2, 2000 and a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued, directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid order.

(2.) A copy of the grounds of detention has been filed along with writ petition. The ground of detention mentions about one criminal case in which the petitioner was involved. It is alleged that on May 20, 2000, the petitioner along with his companions went to the shop of Ready-made Garments of Dinesh Chandra Gupta in Mohalla Gola Bazar, Kasba Nawabganj and took 9 sets of cloths from there. When Dinesh Chandra Gupta demanded price, the petitioner hurled abuse and took out country made pistol, looted the cash kept in the box and beat Dinesh Kumar Gupta. He also threatened the witnesses of dire consequences showing them country made pistol. That while making good their escape, the companions of the petitioner snatched Rs. 1,200 as Goonda tax from Sushll Kumar Gupta. The case was registered at Crime No. 88 of 2000 under Section 394. I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) of U. P. Gangsters Act and Anti Social Prevention Act at Police Station, Nawabganj, district Gonda.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that the writ petition was filed on July 19, 2000, even before the detention order had been executed or grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Judgments of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and others v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and another, 1992 SCC (Cri) 301 and N. K. Bapna v. Union of India and others. (1992) 3 SCC 512. In the case of Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia (supra) the matter has exhaustively been dealt with and Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ;