RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAHARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The horny central part of this writ petition pertains to the question whether the possession and circulation of counterfeit currency notes falls with the orbit of an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order' and to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community or only that of breach of 'law and order' made punishable under the ordinary criminal law of the land. The controversy has cropped up in the wake of the following profile of the case.

(2.) Thirty currency notes-each of Rs. 500 denomination totalling to Rs. 15,000.00 were given by the Yogendra Pratap, resident of Maharwa District Rupen Dei, Nepal to his sister's son Alok Kumar, resident of an Pakad, P.S. Kotwali, district Maharajganj on 22-5-1999 for being exchanged by the currency notice of smaller denominations. Alok Kumar got the change of Rs. 5000 (ten notes of Rs. 500 each) from Mahendra Munish son of Prabhunath Chiuraha, P.S. Kotwali, Maharajganj and took the change of Rs. 6000.00 (12 notes of Rs. 500 each) from the petitioner-Ravindra Kumar Agrahari and similarly got the change of eight notes of Rs. 500 (Rs. 4000) from other shop keepers. On the same day, the petitioner, it is alleged, passed on 12 notes of Rs. 500 each to Brij Behari Shah of Shah Iron Stores, Plaza Market near Bus Station, Maharajganj with a view to partly wipe off the outstanding amount of Rs. 6800.00 on account of the purchase of iron bars on credit. Brij Behari Shah refused to accept the said notes as he suspected them to be counterfeit and informed of the fact to the local police, Kotwali, Maharajganj. The 12 notes of Rs. 500 each were seized from the possession of the petitioner and they were sent for examination by the specified Branch of the Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur on receipt of latter dated 25-5-1999 from the Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur that all the 12 notes were counterfeit, crime case No. 236 of 1999 under Section 489-A/489-B/489-C, 419 and 420, IPC was registered against the petitioner at P.S. Kotwali, Maharajganj. The petitioner along with other accused persons were taken in custody and sent to jail. The petitioner was, however, subsequently released on bail. The sponsoring authority, i.e. Sri Viswajeet Mahapatra, Superintendent of police. Maharajganj submitted a report dated 26-6-1999 enclosing therewith the relevant documents indulging statements of various witnesses, copies of the general diaries and the F.I.R. to indicate that the petitioner after being released on bail, has again engaged himself in the circulation of coutnerfeit currency notes with the result credibility with regard to the genuineness of the dia currency notes has gone down. We would do well to quote the specific words used by the sponsoring authority : On receipt of the above report of the sponsoring authority, an order of detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NSA') was passed by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj on 27-6-1999 and the grounds in support of the detention order required to be communicated under Section 8 of the Act along with detention order were served on the petitioner on 29-6-1999. The grounds of detention contained the details of facts and documents, as have been submitted by the sponsoring authority. Preventive order of detention was approved by the State Government and after receipt of the recommendations of the Advisory Board under Section 11 of the Act on 13-8-1999 the matter of the petitioner was again reviewed by the State Government and it confirmed the detention order under Section 12(1) of NSA on 18-8-1999 for a period of 12 months.

(3.) The petitioner made a representation against the detention order on 3-7-1999 which was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the State Government on 4-7-1999. On receipt of the representation on 5-7-1999, it was processed and examined and ultimately rejected on 10-7-1999, the communication of which was sent through Radiogram on 11-7-1999.