LALTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition was filed by the petitioner Lalta before this Court against his detention, vide Annexure '1', under the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) By this petition the detention order was challenged ipso facto on the grounds that there is enormous delay in making the F. I. R., which constituted the basis for detention of the petitioner, in Crime No. 100 of 2002 under S. 143/377/323/500/504/506 I.P.C. registered at P. S. Mursan at the instance of one Bhudeo son of Atar Singh. He was a witness against the petitioner and his cohorts in the said criminal matter. Bhudeo son of Atar Singh lodged this F. I. R. on 20-1-2002. All the cases prosecuted against the petitioner and his companions were launched after registration of Crime No. 52 of 1997, the F. I. R. of which was lodged against Suresh Chaudhary. These cases were brought against the petitioner at the instance of Suresh Chaudhary who is an influential politician belonging to the ruling party. In the said crime number the petitioner was an eyewitness. It was alleged against Suresh Chaudhary that some others were also accused with him therein. All these offences belong to P. S. Mursan. From these F. I. Rs. the message to be conveyed is that they were consequence of political rivalry between the petitioner and Suresh Chaudhary. The informant of all the cases, which were relied upon for detention of the petitioner by the detaining authority, were lodged by his close relatives or group-men. The next submission that was made by learned counsel for the petitioner against his detention is that the District Magistrate had not applied his mind properly to the facts and circumstances of the case and that none of these cases constitute sufficient basis for the employment of the provisions of the said Act since they are not concerned with the maintenance of public order. All these cases pertain to law and order and not the public order, as asserted by the detaining authority in his detention order dated 13-2-2002. Lastly, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already served more than 11 months and, therefore, the object and purpose of the detention has by and large been accomplished.

(3.) In response to the said submissions, learned A. G. A. has impressed upon us that this Court cannot go into the first and second submissions as they are touching the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and, therefore, this court is precluded from going into its correctness ordinarily. These submissions could be examined by the criminal courts in those trials which the petitioner on account of his activities is facing. So far as non-application of mind or mala fide conduct of the detaining authority is concerned, there is no merit in the contention, according to learned A. G. A.