ABHAY CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG> N .PANDEY & A.K.VERMA,JJ. </DJG> - This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.10.1999, as contained in Annexur -1, whereby, the State Government, Rome (Police) Department, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 21(1) read with Section 22 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ', has been pleased to confirm the detention order date 9.9.1999, as contained in An -nexure -2, passed by the District Magistrate, Samastipur under Section 12(2) of the said Act with a direction that the petitioner shall remain in detention till 9.9.2000.

(2.) AS would appear from the materials on record, the District Magistrate, Samastipur, being satisfied with in order to prevent the writ petitioner from acting in any manner pre -judicial to the maintenance of the public order in his power conferred by Sub -section (1) of Section 12 of the Act detained him in Sub -jail Rosera. Along with the said order a copy of the grounds of detention, as contained in Annexure -3, was also served from which it appears that as many as six criminal cases under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code like 302, 363, 364, 307, 387 etc. were instituted against him. The petitioner was also given liberty to file representation, if so desired. But as would appear from the counter affidavit, filed in this case, no representation was filed.

(3.) MR . Thakur learned counsel appearing for the petitioner firstly contended that, as would appear from the -judgment dated 17.6.1999, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No.48 of 1999, arising out of Rosera Police Station Case No.44 of 1998, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. It would appear that ground no.1 of detention was that the petitioner was made accused in Rosera Police Station Case No.44 of 1998 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. But since the petitioner was already acquitted for such a charge, therefore, the consideration of the District Magistrate on such a ground was non -est. He, therefore, contended since one of the grounds had become non -est on the day of the order of detention, all the subsequent orders regarding detention became illegal and unauthorised. Reliance in this regard was made to a decision of this Court in the case of . In our view, from a bare reference to Section 12A (1) (a), as inserted by Act 9 of 1994, it would appear that there is no substance in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel. Because in view of the said provision the order of detention shall not be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are vague, nonexistent, non -relevant, not communicated with such person or invalid for any other reason whatsoever and accordingly on the basis of the remaining grounds order of detention can be held to be justified.