SANTOSH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India is to an order of detention passed by the respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Hoshangabad on 5-1-2008, Annexure P-l and affirmed in appeal by order dated 22-4-2008, Annexurep-3. The order has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 3 (2) (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 on the ground that the activities of the petitioner being prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.

(2.) THE order of detention is an outcome of a letter dated 29-12-2007 by the Superintendent of Police, Hoshangabad requesting the District magistrate, Hoshangabad for taking an action against the petitioner because the increasing criminal activities of his has caused an imminent danger to the tranquility of public peace and social order in the society. The District magistrate in exercise of his power under Section 3 (2) (3) of the National security Act, 1980 passed the detention order and communicated the reasons whereof on 5-1-2008 to the petitioner under Section 8 of the Act of 1980. Thereafter, the State Government on the basis of the report furnished to it by the Advisory Board under Section 11 of the Act of 1980 passed an order under section 12 on 21-4-2008, confirming the order of detention of petitioner till 5-3-2009. The foundation of the detention order as apparent from the report dated 29-12-2007 by Superintendent of Police are 17 cases registered against the petitioner for offences under Public Gambling Act, Excise Act, Arms Act and the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) TERMING the action of the respondent being arbitrary, illegal and infested with malafide, it is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that out of 17 offences, none of the offences are such as would cause any furore to public peace and tranquility, nor in any manner the same would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is further contended that out of 17 cases listed against the petitioner, he is acquitted in three matters, whereas one offence under the Public Gambling Act has been splitted into five cases to show the increased number of cases. Similarly for the offences under the Arms Act and the Indian Penal Code, the split has been done to show the increased number of cases. It is stated that most of the offences are shown of the period between 1998 and 2004 and only seven incidents are being shown of the year 2007, of which, some are for petty offences. In respect of the case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 for Crime No. 473/2007, it is urged, is concocted and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The reliance of false implication is placed on a report submitted by the Additional Superintendent of police, Annexure P-6. It is contended there being no objective appreciation of the material on record, the subjective satisfaction suffers from perversity. The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Victoria Fernandes Vs. Lalman Sawma and others (AIR 1992 SC 687) and has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh alias Shukhkhu Vs. State of M. P. , Writ Petition No. 2617/2008, Narendra Kushwaha Vs. State of M. P, Writ Petition No. 4312/2008, ravi Tiwari and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2003 (3) M. P. H. T. 528 (DB) = 2003 (3) MPLJ 372, Geeta Sahu Vs. District Magistrate, Shahdol, 2000 (4) M. P. H. T. 482 (DB) = 2000 (2) MPLJ 618 and Pappu Khatik Vs. State of m. P. and others, 2006 (3) M. P. H. T. 341 (DB) = W. P. No. 2028/2006. It is accordingly contended that the action of the respondents is,perse, illegal and is liable to be quashed and the petitioner be set free.