NANHA SINGH Vs. SUPDT DISTT JAIL KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Nanha Singh questions the validity of an order dated 12th of December, 1983 passec by District Magistrate, Kanpur authorising his detention under the provisions of Sec. 3 of the National Security Act.

(2.) PETITIONER was in connection with Crime Case No. 751 of 1981 under Sees. 399/402 and 400 IPC and Crime Case No. 752 of 1981 under Sec. 25/27 of the Arms Act, arrested by the police of police station Moraina, Madhya Pradesh on 21st of November, 1981, subsequently in connection with Crime Case no. 553 of 1981, under Sec. 396 IPC of Police Station Sakheti, District Kanpur Dehat, he was on 4th of February, 1983 brought to district jail Kanpur and lodged there. While the petitioner was still in jail custody in connection with Crime Case no. 553 of 1981, he was served with the impugned order of detention which is dated 12th of December, 1983 along with the grounds thereof on 13th of December, 1983.

(3.) HE contended that a perusal of the particulars served upon the petitioner shows that in arriving at the satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to indulege in an activity prejudicial to maintenance of public order and that it was necessary to detain him, the District Magistrate had placed reliance upon the fact that on 21st of December, 198! the petitioner along with his companions had assembled in Room no. 33 of Patiram Sitaram Dharamshala when he was, on the basis of the information given by an informer, arrested bySriB.L. Ghoraiya of Kotwali, Moraina and from his possession an automatic Chinese TMC along with two magazines and 60 cartridges were recovered and cases under Sees. 399/402 and 400 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act were registered against him. so far as the case under Sees. 399/402 and 400 IPC was concerned the petitioner was prosecuted and tried before the Special fudge, Moraina and was, vide judgment dated 23rd of June, 1982 honourably acquitted therein. According to the petitioner, the Sessions Judge had found the prosecution case to be wohlly false. So far as the case under Sec. 25/27 Arms Act was concerned, the petitioner was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moraina on 25th of January, 1983 and was sentenced to four months R.I According to the petitioner, the District Magistrate, while passing the order for his detention, could not in arriving at the satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, take into consideration the facts which were the subject matter of a criminal charge and in respect of which he had been honourably acquitted by a court of law. As in the instant case, the satisfaction of the District Magistrate was also based on such facts, it stands vitiated and the order dated 12th of December, 1983 deserves to be quashed. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order dated 12th of December, 1983 passed by the District Magistrate stands vitiated inasmuch as it has been passed in a casual and mechanical manner and by ignoring the relevant material which should have been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate before feeling satisfied that the petitioner was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order.