BACHCHAN PANDIT Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Bachchan Pandit by means of this petition has challenged the detention order dated 21-10-94, under Section 3(2) of National Security Act passed by the District Magistrate, Gonda detaining the petitioner under National Security Act.

(2.) The petitioner surrendered in the Court on 23-9-94, in connection with an incident registered atCase Crime No. 148/94, under Sections 396, 436, 427, 353, 186, 376, 342, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, which is alleged to have taken place on 15-9-94, and since then he is in jail. The detention order is Annexure No. 1 and the grounds of detention is Annexure No. 2. These, Annexures indicate that the petitioner has been detained under the provisions of National Security Act only on account of one incident which relates to Crime No. 148/94 as mentioned above. A copy of the FIR, has also been filed along with the grounds of detention. The petitioner gave a representation against his detention order contained as Annexure No. 3 to the Superintendent, District Jail, Gonda on 1-11-94. The said representation was sent to the State Government by the Superintendent, District Jail, Gonda on 8-11-94. The representation sent by the Superintendent, District Jail, Gonda to the State Government, on 8-11-94, was received by the State Government on 29-11-94, and it is said that the said representation was sent to Advisory Board on 30-11-94. On the same day, i. e., 30-11-94, the comments were also required from the District Magistrate, Gonda by Fax Message. It is not disputed that no comments had been sent by the District Magistrate to the State Government and, therefore, the State Government sent reminders on 3-12-94, 15/16-12-94 and 24-12-94. It is alleged that finally the comments were received on 26-12-94. It is further said that after receipt of the comments, the State Govt. rejected the representation moved by the petitioner on 29-12-94. Apart from this, the Union of India also informed the State Government, that a representation has been received on 11-11-94, but as the Union of India found that certain vital information was required for proper decision of the representation, therefore, Union of India sent a message to the State Govt.. through wire-less on 14-11-94, for sending comments. As pointed out above, no comments had been sent till then, the Union of India also sent reminders on 1-12-94 and 19-12-94. The State Government, after receipt of the comments from the District Magistrate, Gonda, sent a reply to the Union of India which was received by the Central Government, on 3-1-95, and thereafter, the Union of India rejected the representation of the detenue on 6-1-95.

(3.) In the instant case as pointed out above, there is a delay of seven days in sending the representation to the State Government, the petitioner made a representation on 1-11-94, and an endorsement made on the first page of the representation itself shows that the representation was received by the Superintendent of District Jail, Gonda on 1-11-94. It is alleged that the Superintendent of Distt. Jail, Gonda sent the representation of the detenu to the State Government, on 8-11-94. There is nothing on the record to explain the delay of seven days. No affidavit has also been filed by the Superintendent of Distt. Jail, Gonda explaining the above mentioned delay in sending the representation to the State Government. Apart from this, no explanation has been given by the other authorities who have filed the counter-affidavit about the delay in sending the representation to the State Government. In these circumstances, the delay of seven days is unexplained. Again, it is alleged that the Superintendent of Distt. Jail, sent the representation to the State Government, on 8-11-94, but the same was received on 29-11-94. It is strange thing that the representation of the petitioner took 20 days in reaching-the State Government, when even the ordinary post will not take 20 days from Gonda to Lucknow. The Distt. Magistrate, Gonda filed the counter-affidavit but nothing has been said therein that how he sent the representation to the State Government, and how the same was received after 20 days. The State Government, after receipt of the representation called for comments from the Distt. Magistrate, Gonda through Fax Message, on 30-11-94. It is not disputed that no, comments were sent and, therefore, the reminders had been sent by the State Government to the District Magistrate, Gonda on 3-12-94, 15/16-12-94 and 24-12-94. After all these reminders, the comments were sent by the Distt. Magistrate, Gonda to the State Government, which were received on 26-12-94. It is strange thing that the District Magistrate did not send the comments in a case of National Security Act in spite of the reminders of the State Government. Similarly, the representation of the petitioner was received by the Central Government, on 11-11-94, through the Superintendent of Distt. Jail, Gonda. As certain information was needed for disposal of the petitioner's representation, therefore, the Central Government directed the State Government, to furnish such details through wireless message dated 14-11-94, but no such information was sent to the Central Government, in spite of the reminders by the Central Government, on 1-11-94 and 20-11-94.