CHARANSINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHARANSINGH, father of the detenu Rinkusingh by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the correctness, validity and propriety of the Order No. 5/nsa/99 dated 17/8/1999 passed by respondent No. 3-District Magistrate, Katni and the intimation dated 18/8/1999 sent by the Station House Officer, Police Station Madhavnagar, whereunder petitioner's son Rinkusingh has been directed to be detained and kept in Central Jail, Jabalpur under Section 3, sub-section (2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner his son Rinkusingh (hereinafter referred as detenu) is a peace loving citizen and is not involved in criminal activities nor is menace to the public safety, public order and tranquillity, therefore, his detention under the orders impugned is bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of law and deserves to be quashed.

(3.) FROM the original records and the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition is appears that on 16-8-99 the Superintendent of Police made a report to the District Magistrate, Katni. The said report was in respect of the illegal acts and criminal activities of the detenu. It was submitted to the District Magistrate that the detenu was a hardened criminal and it was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of the public order, therefore, a preventive order under the National Security Act, 1980 was necessary to be taken. The said report, was supported by certain details of the records of the Police Station, Madhavnagar, Katni. The said report was also accompanied with the F. I. R. , copies of Sanhas and other material. A list of witnesses was also submitted by the Superintendent of Police before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate after receiving the complaint registered the same and examined the Town Inspector of Police Station, Madhavnagar. After recording his satisfaction that with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to make an order directing his detention, the District Magistrate passed an order under Section 3 sub-section 2 and sub-section 3 of the National Security Act. The District Magistrate passed an order under the powers conferred upon him by the State Government. The order was sent by the District Magistrate to the State Government for its approval. The State Government approved the order passed by the District Magistrate on 27-8-99. In accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the National Security Act, the State Government submitted the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board constituted by it under Section 9, the grounds on which the order was made and the representation for consideration, the Advisory Board after considering the material placed before it and taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, after hearing the detenu submitted its report to the appropriate Government that the order passed by the District Magistrate and approved by the State Government were valid and in accordance with law. The Advisory Board in its report dated 5-10-99 submitted that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore, his detention was justified. The Advisory Board also opined that there were sufficient grounds for detention of Rinkusingh son of Charansingh under National Security Act. After receiving the report of the Advisory Board the Slate Government by its order dated 21-10-99, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1 of Section 12 of the National Security Act confirmed the detention order and directed that period of detention of said Rinkusingh shall continue till expiry of 12 months from the date of his detention i. e. , upto 17-8-2000.