SOURABH YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner with issuance of writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, seeks quashment of the order dated 7 th April 2012 passed by the District Magistrate Bhind under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act 1980, directing him to be detained in Central Jail, Gwalior.

(2.) The facts, for just decision of this petition are that the Superintendent of Police Bhind informed in writing that the petitioner is constantly involved in criminal activities in the area. Number of criminal reports were received by the police authorities. A large number of criminal reports were lodged against the petitioner and number of criminal cases were reported to be pending against him. On satisfying with the materials available by the police and placing due consideration thereon, the learned District Magistrate passed the impugned order (Annexure-P/1), hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time of passing the detention order dated 7 th April 2012, the petitioner was below 18 years of age and so he was a juvenile. It is submitted that under the circumstances, the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2000 shall apply to the present case. It is submitted that the District Magistrate though was empowered under the National Security Act 1980 but was not having jurisdiction over Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection)Act 2000 for passing the detention order against the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner filed the mark-sheet of District Primary Board Examination Bhind Year 2004 wherein it was mentioned that he is son of Suresh Yadav and Smt. Shrilata, whose date of birth is 8 th July 1994 and he participated in the examination as a private candidate from Mahavir Swami School Mau, District Bhind and was declared passed. As per mark-sheet, the age of the petitioner, at the relevant time, was below 18 years of age, hence, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, which was passed by the District Magistrate ignoring the relevant provisions of law.