GEETA SAHU Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the correctness, validity and propriety of the Order No. 32/detention/1998 dated 24-11-98 passed by District Magistrate, Shahdol, annexed to the petition as Annexure P-1.

(2.) BY the impugned order the District Magistrate, Shahdol exercising his powers under Sub-section 2 read with Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 ordered that Pappu @ Radheshyam Teli (husband of the petitioner) be detained and kept in Central Jail, Rewa (M. P. ).

(3.) THE petitioner says and submits that the order Annexure P-1 is patently illegal as it does not take into consideration that out of 14 cases referred in the grounds of detention the petitioner has been acquitted in number of cases and was convicted only in one case in the year 1994 and in the appeal the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone i. e. 97 days and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed upon him. It is also submitted that item No. 16 of the grounds could not be taken into consideration for detaining the petitioner and similarly grounds No. 17 and 18 are not in relation to offences but were simply Rojnamcha reports which were concocted 3, 4 days before the date of the order, so that the petitioner could be detained. It was submitted that orders of acquittal were not placed before the authority, this act of the Superintendent of Police was either an act of negligence or was with ulterior motive so that correct facts were not brought to the notice of the detaining authority. It is further submitted that the authority was persuaded and obliged to believe that the cases were pending and an order of detention was required to be passed. It is also submitted in the petition that the detaining authority did not try to appreciate that item No. 1 to item No. 13 were not within close proximity of the order of detention and the authority was unnecessarily persuaded by those stale cases in which otherwise the detenu was acquitted. It is further submitted that the order of detention was not executed within reasonable time therefore also, the order of detention deserves to be quashed. It was also submitted that as no serious efforts were made to execute the order of arrest, the petitioner, therefore also the order of detention deserves to be quashed. It was further submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was not decided well within time therefore the detention becomes invalid and the order is liable to be quashed. The respondents in their return have submitted that the detenu is a hardened criminal and had terror in the locality, number of cases were registered against him and he was using firearm for commission of offences. The petitioner being a terror in the locality the witnesses were not coming forward to speak against him. According to the return, the petitioner was kept under surveillance from the year 1985 but his criminal activities could not be checked. The District Magistrate after going through the entire material placed before him, registered a case, examined the evidence both oral and documentary and after being satisfied passed the order of detention. The return further says that the order of detention could not be executed because the detenu absconded and, after receiving the information about whereabouts of the detenu the police came to Jabalpur and arrested the detenu on 9-5-99. It is also submitted that the detenu was arrested on 9-5-99 and was thereafter taken to Shahdol and thereafter he was lodged in Rewa Jail. They have submitted that the documents were served on the detenu on 13-5-99. According to them, the information of the order was sent to the government on the date of order itself, the detention order was approved by the State Government on 4-12-98 and thereafter the report that the detenu was absconding was also sent to the Government. They also submitted that while the detenu was absconding petitioner had filed W. P. No. 1042/99 but the same was dismissed by order dated 14-4-99. According to them, the petitioner's matter was placed for consideration before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board considered the case of the petitioner in its Meeting dated 25-6-99 and approved the order of detention. The State Government thereafter confirmed the detention order. The return further says that the petitioner has in fact no grounds in his favour and the order of detention cannot be quashed. The respondents denied the facts that the order was passed without application of mind or without considering the necessary material. The return further says that the order could not be executed because the detenu was absconding and was creating all possible hinderances. It is also submitted in the return that the petitioner remained in jail but did not conduct himself properly and as he was a menace to the peace and safety of public and tranquility the detaining authority was justified in passing the order of detention.