Skip to content


Mohammad Ismail Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1985CriLJ266
AppellantMohammad Ismail
RespondentState of U.P. and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....the counter affidavit filed by the district magistrate, unnao, opposite party no.2.4. one of the grounds mentioned in annuexure 2 was that the petitioner along with his companions assaulted man singh and dhruwa singh on 18-4-82 as a result of which man singh died on the spot and dhruwa singh received injuries and consequently a case under sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and 149 i.p.c. was registered and pending in the court the petitioner's contention was that so far as the involvement of the petitioner was concerned even the dying declaration of man singh deceased did not implicate him and consequently there being no evidence whatsoever against him, a charge sheet had not been submitted against the petitioner. this fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit where it was stated that.....
Judgment:

R.C. Deosharma, J.

1. Through this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed that the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Unnao, under Section 3 of the National Security Act against the petitioner be quashed. The petitioner was a Pradhan of village Sainta in the District of Unnao and had held that office for a considerable period He was re-elected to this office in the last general elections. It was contended that there was election rivalary in the village and on that account he had been falsely implicated at the instance of his rivals in several criminal cases. The District Magistrate, Unnao, by his order dated 10th August, 1983 passed in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act ordered the petitioner to be detained The grounds of detention contained in Annexure-2 were also formulated on 10-8-83 and were duly served.

2. The petitioner has now challenged his detention on various grounds contending inter alia that several of the cases mentioned in the grounds of detention were such which were not referable to public.order. It has also been averred that in one of the cases the petitioner was not even challaned and yet the District Magistrate has mentioned in the grounds of detention that a case against the petitioner for that offence was pending. The contention accordingly was that these grounds, which were irrelevant and some of which were virtually non existent, had also influenced the mind of the detaining authority in passing the impugned order of detention and on that ground the order of detention was liable to be quashed.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as also for the State and have also perused the counter affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Unnao, opposite party No.2.

4. One of the grounds mentioned in Annuexure 2 was that the petitioner along with his companions assaulted Man Singh and Dhruwa Singh on 18-4-82 as a result of which Man Singh died on the spot and Dhruwa Singh received injuries and consequently a case under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and 149 I.P.C. was registered and pending in the Court The petitioner's contention was that so far as the involvement of the petitioner was concerned even the dying declaration of Man Singh deceased did not implicate him and consequently there being no evidence whatsoever against him, a charge sheet had not been submitted against the petitioner. This fact has not been denied in the counter-affidavit where it was stated that the petitioner had not been named in the dying declaration made by the deceased and there was no evidence against him and hence a charge sheet was not submitted against the petitioner. It would, therefore, appear that while passing the order of detention and frmulating the grounds therefor the Detaining Authority was under impression that the petitioner was also standing trial for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. etc. relating to the murder of Man Singh It was, as a matter of fact, not correct How far this' ground had influenced the mind of detaining authority in passing the order of detention cannot be said It is settled law that in case any of the grounds mentioned in the detention order and which had influenced the mind of the detaining authority was not germane or was non existent then the detention order would be vitiated This was one such ground which in fact was non existent inasmuch as the petitioner was not being prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. with relation to the murder of Man Singh.

5. Learned Counsel also argued that one of the grounds for detention was that the petitioner had cut away a tree in the village and a case under Section 15 of the Forest Act was registered against him but nobody was prepared to appear as a witness against him Learned Counsel argued and rightly so that this ground was also not referable to the maintenance of public order. In this view of the matter some of the grounds were not germane or were non existent and consequently the detention order stands vitiated The petition, therefore, succeeds.

6. In the result, the petition is allowed and the detention order contained in Annexure-1 is quashed The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless he is required to be detained in connection with some other case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //