JAGABANDHU PURANPANDA Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application seeking release of the Petitioner quashing the order of detention passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 as per Annexure-1 dated 29-9-1989.

(2.) As it is revealed from the ground of detention, the order of detention had been passed mainly on account of the fact that on 19-9-1989 the Petitioner along with two others had assaulted one Laxminarayan Panda inside the temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri by using bhujali and iron rods. The Petitioner was armed with bhujali when he inflicted bleeding injuries on Laxminarayan Panda. This had terrified the members of the public who started running in different directions and according to the notice, that was an act carrying potential menace for disturbing the public order. A police constable who was in duty came out to rescue the injured, but was assaulted by the Petitioner on his head and had sustained bleeding injuries. As per the statements in Annexure-1, for some time the temple was deserted and normal life in the temple was affected. A police case was lodged against the Petitioner under Sections 307, 332 and 34, I.P.C. and the police case was registered on 19-9-1989 which was sue-judice on the date of detention. It was further indicated in the said notice that during the investigation of that case, the Petitioner had threatened that on his release on bail, be would take away the life of Laxminarayan Panda and a station diary to that effect was also made in the police station on 25-9-1989.

(3.) The preventive detention is not intended as a punitive measure as curtailment of liberty by way of punishment for an offence already committed. When the impact of the criminal activity of a person is deeper and affects even tempo of life and public order as the repercussion of the act would embrace large Sections of the community and incite them 'to make further breach of law and order to subvert the public order that would be a case not only of law and order but also affecting public order and calls for the special measure of detaining the offender without trial under the National Security Act. In a case Sushanta Goswami and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, 1969 AIR(SC) 1004it was held, that when the ground of detention related to the matters for which penal or other action could be taken under the relevant statute and prosecution could be launched under the said statute if ordinarily should not attract the application of the provision for detention under the National Security Act. The contravention of any law always affects the order, but before it could be said to have affected public order it has to be seen if the impact of the criminality would affect the community and public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action under the Act.