KARTIK CHANDRA SAMANTRAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of detention was passed by the :t Magistrate, Cuttack on 11 -9 -1990 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1988X The same had been done to prevent the detenu, who is the son of the petitioner, from acting in any manner prejudicial to she maintenance of public order.

(2.) THE validity of the order has been assailed on a number of grounds. For the purpose of disposal of the present petition, however, it is enough to refer to one submission which relates to the fact that the detaining authority was not aware of the fact that the detenu was already in custody by the time the decision order was passed. It is also urged that no reason has been ascribed either in the detention order or in the file as to why detention of the petitioner's son was required despite his having been in custody pursuant to his arrest in G. R. Case No. 1303/90 Under Section 394, IPC. It is the settled law by now that in such a case the detaining authority has to show his awareness about the fact that the detenu is in custody and must state reason as to why despite this, detention is called for.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate draws our attention to (N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu). 1989 (II) OLR (SC) 319, in which in a similar case the apex Court while releasing the detenu ordered that the question of preventive detention of the person concerned may be reconsidered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law in case the detenu is released from the connected criminal case and for this purpose, the release would not be treated as an impediment. While quashing the order in the present case, we make similar observation and state that in case the detenu is released in G. R. Case No. 1303/90, the question of this preventive detention on the basis of the materials in question may be reconsidered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law and this judgment shall not be construed as an impediment for that purpose. With this observation, the impugned order is quashed and the petition is allowed. The detenu be released forthwith if his detention is not orequired in connection with any other case. B.N. Dash, J.