MOHD SALAAM Vs. D M ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. Malaviya, J. Petitioner Mohd. Salim challenges his detention in pursu ance of an order dated 12-4-1989 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. The ground in support of the order of detention alleged that on the night of 10-3-1989 at about 3 a. m. the petitioner alongwith his associates went to the Octroi post at Rewa Road within the limits of Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad where Chhedi Lal Yadav, Octroi Clerk, Bhagwati Prasad Dubey, Assistant Octroi Clerk, Ramanand Clerk, Anoop Kumar and Ishtiyaq Ahmad peons were on duty. There miscreants were armed with country made pistols and one was empty handed. After entering the octroi room they threatened the persons on duty not to move lest they shall be shot dead. Thereafter one of the associates of the petiitoner viz. Asharaf alias Pappu took away about Rs. 3000/- which was placed near the desk on the carpet as also the revenue stamps and the receipts which one kept in his pocket. While coming out, of the two of his associates who were holding bombs in their hand standing in front of the counter window, one Tasleem asked the petitioner to check the cash box as there could be money in it. On this the petitioner opened the cash box and he took away Rs. 26,000/-from it. After threatening the octroi staff not to raise any alarm lest titey would be shot dead they went out of the octroi post. However on the alaem raised by the Clerks of the octroi post the peons and the other persons af er the miscreants. The persons chasing the miscreants were also threatened w h country made pistols and bombs. While escaping the miscreants also snatched away the watch of Anoop Kumar peon and Rs. 1400/- from the pocket of a truk driver who was attacked with the but of the country made pistol. At that stage S. I. S. K. Singh Sengar and S. I. B. P. Singh alone with some other Police constables arrived on the spot and chased the miscreants. After chasing them for a short distance the police party managed to catch hold of one of the associates of the petitioner viz. Ashraf alias Pappu but the petitioner and other associates managed to escape. From the search of Ashraf alias Pappu Rs. 3100-10 p. and few revenue stamps were recovered. It was mentioned in the ground that in connection with the said crime case No. 104 of 1989 under Sec tions 395, 397 and 412,i. P. C. had been registered at police station Naini and was pending investigation. The detaining authority on the said activity of the petitioner and his associates mentioned in the ground that the said ac t of the petitioner and his associates had caused terror on the spot and the true1 drivers who were waiting outside on their trucks began to run away in their trucks; the entire traffic was disrupted and the persons posted at the octroi check post were so scared that they got themselves transferred from the said check post which resulted in disruption of the entire normal activity resulting in the disruption of the public order. The detention order further mentioned that the petitioner who was confined in Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad had obtained bail from the Court from where he was likely to be released from the Jial shortly. It was further mentioned that there was every possibility that after coming; out from Jail the petitioner might again indulge in similar criminal activity which may affect the maintenance of the public order. Hence being satisfied that the activity of the petitioner was of a nature which was likely to affect the maintenance of public order, the District Magistrate, Allahabad who was the detaining authority, was of the view that to maintain the public order it was necessary to detain the petitioner and hence the order of detention on the grounds mentioned above was passed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised three points in challen ging the legality of the detention order. The first point raised by him is that since the police report dated 10-4-1989 sent by the police station concerned which was also before the detaining authority mentioned that the bail applica tion of the petitioner has been allowed and he was likely to be released from jail, and since this fact had been again mentioned in the grounds of detention of the petitioner, the real object of the detaining authority was to prevent the petitioner from coming out of jail. According to learned counsel for the petitioner this was a colourable exercise of power of detention the sole object of which was to nullify the affect of the order of bail. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner thus contended that the real object of the detaining authority was not to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner which could be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. This aspect of the contention of the petitioner also covers the second point taken by him that the activity of the petitioner was not such as could be termed to be one involving the maintenance of public order. According to tat, learned counsel for the petitioner the activity of the petitioner and his associates at the best was one concerning law and order. The third contention of the learned counsel is that in any case the activity of the petitioner being only a solitary activity, it could not be validiy taken was into account by the detaining authority for detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the National Security Act, as according to him a solitary incident could not give rise to an apprehension that the petitioner had tendency to act in the similar fashion again.

(3.) AS has been noted earlier the petitioner along with his associates had gone to octroi post and on pistol point had robbed the public servants by putting them under the fear of death. On coming out they had robbed a truck driver and had threatened the public with country made pistols and bombs. This type of activity by the petitioner was not an activity based on any personal animosity of the petitioner with any individual but was aimed to affect a system. This fact cannot be ignored that all over the country persons at the octroi posts have to work round the clock including the collection of octroi during the dead of night. Such an activity as is scribed to the petitioner is bound to demoralise the public servants who are discharging their official duties. In this connection it may be relevant to quote the following passage of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Babul Mitra v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court page 197 : "the object of throwing bomb on the police personel was to cause intimidation and contusion in their minds in order to facilitate his escape. Creating panic in the minds of the police personnel of the State from performing their legitimate duties in the maintenence of law and order in the State. That would disturb the even tempo of the community life. Accordingly, we think that the second ground is also connected with' public order. " If as opined by the Supreme Court attach on the police personnel was likely to demoralise the police force of the State then on the same reasoning it can truly be said that attack on the persons employed at the octroi post by miscreants is also going to demoralise them and as such this activity would be clearly treated as an activity affecting the maintenance of the public order. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the activity assigned to the petitioner was not an activity which the detaining authority could have treated as a valid ground for detaining the petitioner under the National Security Act on the ground that it was likely to affect the maintenance of public order.