SUBHAN MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some considerable length.

(2.) The petitioner Subhan Mohammad has challenged the detention of his son Noor Mohammad by order dated 6th May, 1988 passed by the District Magistrate, Udaipur under the National Security Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and which has been confirmed by the State Government by order dated 7th July, 1988. 24 grounds have been mentioned in the grounds of detention which have been handed over to the detenu. The detenu's representation against those grounds was rejected by the Advisory Board. In these grounds, the first 11 grounds relate to the various criminal cases which are pending against the detenu from 1981 to date. They include two cases under S.307, I.P.C., two of theft; one under Ss.224, 225, 352, 353, I.P.C., one under Ss.384, 392 four under S.16/54 Excise Act, and one under Ss.153A, 295A, I.P.C. and S.25 Arms Act. The next 8 relate to cases which were filed against the detenu but in those the detenu had been acquitted on account of the fact that the witnesses turned hostile. Then there are cases in which proceedings under Ss.107 and 110, Cr. P.C. had been taken against the detenu and also one in which the detenu was externed from the district for six months. The last ground is that a petition has been filed by the residents of Udaipur showing that the detenu was a terror and a desperado.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all these grounds go to show that they relate to only law and order situation and not disturbance of a public order and, therefore, on the basis of these grounds he could not have been detained. In our opinion, this contention is fully met by the decision of their Lordships reported in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1982 2 SCC 403, wherein the distinction in matters relating to law and order problem and that of public order problem has been clearly brought out. It has been pointed out that :-