OSAMA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VISHNU Sahai, J. Heard Mr. Vishal Chaudhary for the petitioner-detenu, Mr. Janardan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri B. B. Saxena for the respondent No. 4.

(2.) THROUGH this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- detenu Osama has impugned the order dated 1-2-2003 passed by the first respondent i. e. , Mr. Navneet Sahgal, District Magistrate, Lucknow, detaining him under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act. The detention order also with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 1-2-2003, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 1-2- 2003 itself and their true copies have been annexed as the Annexures No. 1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition.

(3.) THE averments contained in paragraphs 9 to 13 of the writ petition and those contained in the ground (d) of paragraph-28 of the writ petition, have been replied to in paragraphs 11 to 15 of the return of the detaining authority. In our judgment, it would be proper to extract the said paragraphs in entirety: - "11. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that during the course of investigation, it was found that the offence under Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangster Act was also added as prima facie offence is made out, therefore Section 2/3 Gangster Act was added in CR No. 13/2003 by the Investigating Officer on 26-1-2003. 12. That the contents of paragraph 10 of the writ petition relates to the moving of bail application before the Sessions Judge under Section 302/34 IPC needs no reply. 13. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it is stated that there is no dispute of the fact that there is Special Judge Gangster Act in relating to entertaining the offence relating to Gangster Act. 14. That the contents of paragraph 12 of the writ petition are not disputed that the cognizance of the offence relating to U. P. Gangster Act alongwith other substantive offence can be entertain by the Special Judge. 15. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 13 of the writ petition, it is stated that when the detention order was passed on 1-2-2003 in the morning session by the detaining authority before 10 O'clock. THE custody warrant by the Special Judge, Gangster Act in the aforesaid C. R. No. 13/2003 authorising custody of the petitioner under the offence of 2/3 Gangster Act to the Superintendent District Jail, Lucknow on 1-2-2003, the detention order was earlier passed, therefore, at the time of passing of the detention order before 10 O'clock, the petitioner was not detained in the offence under Section 2/3 Gangster Act relating to CR No. 13/2003". Mr. Janardan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, emphatically contended that since the custody warrant of the petitioner-detenu in the case under Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangsters Act was prepared by the Special Judge, U. P. Gangsters Act, authorising the Superintendent District Jail, Lucknow to lodge the petitioners in District Jail Lucknow, on 1-2-2003 after the passing of the detention order, the detaining authority cannot be faulted for not showing his awareness in the grounds of detention about the petitioner-detenu being in custody in the offence under Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangsters Act and about the likelihood of his being released from Jail in the said offence.