ittan @ Darvesh Singh Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

1 W.P No.16270/2012 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO.16270/2012 PETITIONER : ITTAN @ DARVESH SINGH CHOUHAN Vs. RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Shri Y. M. Tiwari, Advocate. For the respondent/State: Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. Advocate General. Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe, JJ.ORDER

(09/11/2012) The petitioner has filed this petition assailing order dated 20.11.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Katni by which the petitioner has been detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as the order dated 17.1.2012 passed by the State whereby the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate has been affirmed.

2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the petitioner who is a resident of Katni was served with a notice issued by the respondent no.3 in relation to proceeding initiated against him under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Katni passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2011 detaining the petitioner in Central Jail, Jabalpur. The order of the District Magistrate, Katni was confirmed and affirmed by the State by the impugned order dated 17.1.2012. 2 W.P No.16270/2012 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of detention has been passed on the basis of the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Katni dated 19.11.2011 which is false inasmuch as several cases, which have been alleged to have been pending against the petitioner, had already been decided and in those cases the petitioner had been acquitted. It is submitted that the Superintendent of Police, Katni furnished wrong information before the District Magistrate, Katni, respondent no.3 who, without application of mind, has passed the impugned order totally overlooking the fact that the petitioner had infact been acquitted in as many as 5 cases which were said to be pending against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the orders of acquittal as documents Annexure D-1, alongwith the application for taking documents on record, in support of his submission. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the fact that the petitioner had been acquitted in the matters which had been mentioned at Serial Nos.8, 10, 11, 14 & 15 in the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Katni as well as the report of the Superintendent of Police, Katni, therefore, the impugned orders of detention cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

4. The learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State, per contra submits that the impugned orders under the Act have been passed against the petitioner on a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Katni in which as many as 18 cases have been mentioned against him. It is 3 W.P No.16270/2012 submitted that the list of offences mentioned in the aforesaid orders are all heinous and even if the petitioner has been acquitted in 5 of the cases mentioned in the aforesaid list, it would not make any difference or have any impact on the order of detention as the remaining offences mentioned in the impugned orders are themselves sufficient to uphold the order of detention. It is submitted that the petitioner is a habitual criminal/offender and is regularly indulging in criminal activities. The learned Dy. Advocate General has pointed out that the petitioner has infact committed dacoity, rape as well and in general committed heinous offences even while there was an order of externment against him on 18.6.2008 which has been mentioned at Sr. No.17 of the list of offences. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is emboldened by the fact that he has been able to avoid conviction and has even gone to the extent of committing heinous offence at the gate of the District Court, Katni itself on 18.11.2011 which has affected the public order. It is stated that because of the terror created by the petitioner, the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner and it was in such circumstances that the proceeding against the petitioner under the Act was necessitated.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The crucial issue which arises for consideration is whether the activities of the detenue mentioned in the order of detention were prejudicial to the public order. [See: Pushkar Mukherjee vs. State of W.B., AIR 197.SC 852.Arun Gosh vs. State of W.B., AIR 197.SC 1228.Kishori Mohan Boara vs. State of W.B., AIR 197.SC 922.Babul Mitra alias Anil Mitra vs. State of 4 W.P No.16270/2012 W.B., AIR 197.SC 197.and Milan Banik vs. State of W.B., AIR 197.SC 1214.It is well settled that a single act can also be sufficient for holding that public order was affected. What is required to be seen is the effect of an act on even tempo of life and extent of its reach upon the society and its impact. [See: U.P. and another vs. Sanjai Pratap Gupta, AIR 200.SC 4703].

6. From a perusal of the record it is apparent that the Superintendent of Police, Katni had submitted a report in which he had stated that the petitioner had committed 18 offences, details of which were mentioned therein. It is also apparent that the District Magistrate, Katni, on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, Katni, has examined the record and has thereafter passed the impugned order of detention on being satisfied that activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The District Magistrate, Katni has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has committed the offences even while there was an order of externment against him and has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner had committed an offence at the gate of the District Court, Katni as a result of which the public at large of the area has been terrorized and in such circumstances, with a view to maintain public order, he has passed the impugned order of detention. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of detention is bad in law as while passing the same the District Magtistrate has not taken into account the factum of acquittal is concerned, suffice it to say that mere because the petitioner has been acquitted in some of the cases, would not vitiate the order of 5 W.P No.16270/2012 detention in view of Section 5A of the Act which provides that the order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such ground. From the perusal of grounds of detention it is apparent that the petitioner has committed offences in broad day light which has the impact of affecting even tempo of life and therefore, no fault can be found with the order of detention.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any substance in the only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned orders. The petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. In the facts of the case there shall be no orders as to costs. ( R. S. JHA ) ( ALOK ARADHE ) JUDGE JUDGE 09 11/2012 09/11/2012 mms/-