SHARIEF Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PRATAPGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 27.6.99 the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, on the basis of the material placed before him arrived at that the subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner under Section 3 (3) of the National Security Act with a view to prevent him from committing such acts which disturb the public order, peace and tranquillity of the society.

(2.) In the ground of detention. It has been stated that on information received by the police constables that the petitioner has been selling beef (meat of the cow) as result of which the emotions of the Hindu population of the area was enraged. Both the police constables along with other constables reached at the residence of the petitioner at 11.03 a.m. The petitioner was caught red-handed while selling the meat of the cow. One Mr. Buddu alias Abdul Malik had purchased two kilos of the meat of the cow. At the spot, the instruments for cutting the cow meat, the head of the cow. the meat, and the legs, which were weighing 45 kilos were recovered from the possession of the petitioner which was to be sold. A criminal case bearing No. 52 of 1999 under Section 3/5/8. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act was registered in police-station Maheshganj which was investigated by the Station Officer Sri Bhagrai and Sri Chatpal Singh Chauhan.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid Incident, the atmosphere was surcharged with communal passions between the Hindus and Muslims, which is evident from the news item published in Dalnlk Jagran on 23.6.99. The question which is relevant to be decided in the present writ petition is as to whether the detaining authority was influenced by the antecedent of the petitioner who was alleged to be Involved in similar offences earlier. The grounds for detention reveals that the petitioner even before the said incident was implicated in Case Crime No. 234 of 1996 under Sections 3/5/8. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and from the perusal of his criminal antecedent/history. It was evident that the petitioner was a man of criminal habit and if he should be left free. It will be prejudicial to public order and tranquillity hence he deserves to be detained. According to the police report, it has been averred that in between 1991-99 the petitioner was involved in various cases of dacoity. attempt of murder or assault, etc., several preventive measures were adopted in the past to prevent him from indulging into communal activities as well. Proceedings under U. P. Control of Goonda Act were also Initiated against the petitioner and an history sheet was also opened under the Police Regulations. Regarding the incident dated 22.6.99, it was averred in the ground of detention that fear and terror had been created to such an extent that nobody dared to give evidence against the petitioner. It has been positively asserted by the petitioner in paras 10 and 11 of the writ petition that the petitioner was tried for that offence, but he was acquitted of the charge much before the date of passing of the detention order and para 15 of the writ petition Indicated that he was acquitted in Case Crime No. 83 of 1991 under Section 394, I.P.C., Crime No. 1-A of 1993 under Sections 147/148/149/ 307/504, I.P.C.. Crime No. 38 of 1997 under Sections 323/523. I.P.C. and Crime No. 234 of 1996 under Sections 3. 5, 8. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. It was asserted in para 16 of the writ petition that all those cases which have been indicated as pending for trial, the petitioner had been acquitted in those cases.