GUDDOO Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus, is directed against the detention order dated 25th December, 1983 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 and against the order dated 31st December, 1983 passed by the State Government confirming the said order of the District Magistrate, Lucknow. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the State Government rejecting the representation of the petitioner which was submitted by him against the detention order under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) PETITIONER is under trial in connection which several criminal cases registered against him. He was arrested on 2-10-1983 and was lodged in jail. On 25th December, 1983 this petitioner was served with the order of detention dated 25-12-83 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow by the Prison Authorities, along with this grounds of detention. The followings are the grounds of detention (i) That on 15-7-1982 In the night at 945 P. M. the petitioner had abused and accosted Mukesh Kumar and had fired at him with his fire-arm (Khata), as a consequence of which Mukesh Kumar sustained injuries on his thigh. Mukesh Kumar is brother-in-law of Ratnakar Devedi and at the time of the incident he had gone to his residence at 244, Motinagar, Lucknow, to drop Ratnakar's wife there. The incident was witnessed by Ratnakar Devedi, his wife and one Sri R. C. Srivastava and an FIR was lodged at 22.10 (1010 P. M.) at Police Station Naka (Crime No. 362, u/sec. 307 IPC). A charge-sheet was submitted in the case against the petitioner and the case is now pending in Court. (ii) That on 27-7-1982 at about 10 or 10*30 A.M. complainant Anuruddha Kumar, employee of Saket Filling Centre, Chinhat, Lucknow, was going from the Petrol Pump along with Kunwar Krishna Devedi riding on Hero Majestic Motor Cycle to his employer's residence Sri L. C. Gupta of Mahanagar carrying in a bag a sum of Rs. 16,742.00 kept in the diggi of the vehicle. At some distance from the petrol pump two persons were standing on the left side of the road, one of whom threw a hand- granade at them which hit Kunwar Krishna Devedi on his leg and he fell down from the vehicle. Both these persons had fire arms (Kattas) in their bands. They took out the cash from the diggi of the vehicle and threatened the complainant that if he will try to run away, he will be shot dead. At the distance of about 20 paces a Scooter was parked on which those persons drove away along with the cash An FIR was lodged (Crime No. 251, u/sec. 394 IPC) of this incident the same day on 27-9-1982 at 13 30 at Police Station, Chinhat, District Lucknow. During investigation petitioner was found to have participated in the crime and a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and the case is pending in the court. (iii) That on 15-9-1983 in the night at 830 P. M. complainant Sheo Shankar Lal along with his fattier and brother Pyare lal was sitting at his betel shop on Seth Ramdas Road. Three persons came to his shop and after taking betels they took out 400 rupees from the drawer and when resisted, one of them fired with his fire-arm and the other threw a band- granade injuring the complainant and ran away with the booty towards Saket Palli. There they entered the shop of general merchandise (Parchoon) of Neelam Kesherwani and took the cash from the shop. On being sesisted they fired at Neelam Kesherwani and injured him. Thereafter at some distance they way laid a lady and snatched golden ear-rings and silver chain and ran towards Harijan Basti. In front of the shop a country made pistol and a cartridge were dropped. A report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Hazratganj (Crime No. 1014, u/secs. 394/397 IPC) on 15-9-1983 at 21-50. During investigation petitioner was found to have participated in the crime and a charge sheet was submitted and the case is now pending in the Court. (iv) On 2-10-1983 S. I. M. L. Khan along with other police personnels on getting some information regarding commission of crime relating to Crime No. 1064, reached B. H. M. Park (Begum Hazrat Mahal Park), at 11 A, M. and there he was informed through an informant that the petitioner will be coming from the side of Tulsi Cinema. The police party went in hiding in the park and waited for the petitioner who reached the place from the side of the telephone exchange; and that when he reached the place, the police personnels stopped him. The petitioner, however, took to his heals and in an attempt to evade his arrest, he fired at the police party in order to kill them from his fire-arm which he had kept in his waist. No one was, however, injured and the petitioner was arrested and an FIR was lodged at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow of this incident on 2-10-1983 at 1205 hours (Crime No. 1068, under Section 307 IPC) and Crime No. 1069, under Section 25 Arms the Act

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner challenged the detention order and urged that the grounds on which the detention order has been passed, do not make out the case for detaining the petitioner under sub-section (2; of Section 3 of the Act. His contention was that the ground so taken, at the most relate to the maintenance of "law and order" and the same cannot be taken to effect the "Public order". It was submitted that the grounds relate to incidents affecting individuals and the same would at the most, be said to relate to matters relating to law and order and not affecting the "Public order." He pointed out that in the incident mentioned in ground No. 1, petitioner is said to have fired at Mukesh Kumar and injured him in the night of 15-7-1982. LEARNED counsel contended that the petitioner was got involved in the case on account of enmity. The said incident, according to him, cannot be taken to affect the public order at all. It being an act against the individual cannot be said to have disturbed the maintenance of the public order, and, as such, this ground which has been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate in passing the impugned detention order, is misconceived and irrelevant. The order of detention based on this ground is altogether invalid. LEARNED counsel contended that if one of the grounds on which the detention of the petitioner was based, fails, the detention order would vitiate and being invalid, deserves to be quashed.