RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the detention order dated 04.09.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Khandwa in exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

(2.) The grounds of detention served on the petitioner's son (detenu) refer to the fact that he was involved in the commission of 20 criminal offences from time to time since the year 2001. Reference is made to other facts, which, presumably, were also considered by the detaining Authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that the detention of the petitioner's son in exercise of powers under the National Security Act was inevitable.

(3.) The sole ground on which, in our opinion, this petition should succeed, is that, nowhere in the grounds of detention, the detaining Authority has adverted to the fact that the petitioner's son has been acquitted in 17 criminal cases out of the total 20 cases instituted against him. Further, the 3 remaining cases were pending at the investigation stage only. In other words, the detaining Authority was not aware of the fact that the detenu has already been acquitted in 17 criminal cases. We are inclined to accept that contention also because it is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for the State that the sponsoring Authority has not referred to that fact in the proposal submitted to the detaining Authority. Thus, it is a case of non -consideration of vital and material fact by the detaining Authority before recording his subjective satisfaction. It would have been a different matter if the detaining Authority were to state that he was conscious of the fact that the detenu has already been acquitted in 17 criminal cases out of 20 cases registered against him and inspite of that he was satisfied that the detention of the detenu was indispensable. In that situation, the Court would be slow in sitting over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority as a Court of appeal.