Skip to content


Nizam UddIn Vs. District Magistrate and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1984CriLJ1247
AppellantNizam Uddin
RespondentDistrict Magistrate and ors.
Excerpt:
- - we are unable to accept this contention as it is clearly mentioned in the ground of detention that the petitioner threatened to create communal riot in the city of moradabad, which obviously disturbs public order as public at large is affected and the even tempo of the life of the community is disturbed. this contention cannot be accepted as the petitioner did not complain about the illegibility of the documents in the representation submitted by him against the ground of detention......of habeas corpus.2. the petitioner is detained in district jail, moradabad under the order of the district magistrate moradabad dt. 15.7.1983 passed under section 3(2) of the national security act 1980 with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. the detention order along with copies of the first information report and the relevant general diary entry were served on the petitioner on the same day (15.7.1983) in jail. the petitioner submitted his representation on 3.8.1983. a copy of the representation was sent on that very day to the advisory board by the district magistrate moradabad and was placed before the advisory board on 4.8.1983. the district magistrate sent another copy of the representation to the police authorities on.....
Judgment:

B.K. Katju, J.

1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.

2. The petitioner is detained in District Jail, Moradabad under the order of the District Magistrate Moradabad dt. 15.7.1983 passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order along with copies of the first information report and the relevant General Diary entry were served on the petitioner on the same day (15.7.1983) in jail. The petitioner submitted his representation on 3.8.1983. A copy of the representation was sent on that very day to the Advisory Board by the District Magistrate Moradabad and was placed before the Advisory Board on 4.8.1983. The District Magistrate sent another copy of the representation to the Police authorities on 3.8.1983. The comments of the Police authorities were received by the district Magistrate on 8.8.1983 and the representation of the petitioner was sent to the State Government on 9.8.1983 by the District Magistrate along with his comments. The State Government rejected the representation of the petitioner on 18.8.1983.

3. It was mentioned in the ground of detention, which was communicated to the petitioner on 15.7.1983, that the petitioner on 8.7.1983, which was the last Friday of Ramzan, at about 7.20 p.m. in Mohalla Sarai Hussaini Beghum in the city of Moradabad threatened persons with an open knife and demanded money from them and told them that in case he was not given money to celebrate the Id festival he would stab some Hindu and create communal riot in the city or stab himself and implicate someone falsely. On receiving information regarding the activity of the petitioner, the Police authorities went to the spot and saw the petitioner threatening to create communal riot and arrested him. Case No. 215 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the petitioner at the Police Station and the activities of the petitioner were also noted in the General Diary Entry No. 35 recorded at 7.20 p.m. on the same day (8.7.1983) at the Police Station. As Id was to be celebrated on 12.7.1983 the petitioner's threat to create communal riot resulted in wide spread terror in the locality which affected the maintenance of public order.

4. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the ground of detention of the petitioner does not disclose any likelihood of disturbance of public order but only that of law and order. We are unable to accept this contention as it is clearly mentioned in the ground of detention that the petitioner threatened to create communal riot in the city of Moradabad, which obviously disturbs public order as public at large is affected and the even tempo of the life of the community is disturbed.

5. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not furnished with legible copies of the first information report and the relevant General Diary entry. This contention cannot be accepted as the petitioner did not complain about the illegibility of the documents in the representation submitted by him against the ground of detention. Morover the petitioner has annexed typed copies of the first information report and the relevant General Diary entry, which were furnished to him along with the ground of detention, with his petition. We have examined them and, in our opinion, they are neither dim nor illegible, but can be read.

6. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that copies of the first information report and the relevant General Diary entry furnished to the petitioner along with the ground of detention did not disclose that he was demanding money from the members of the public in order to celebrate Id, but only mentioned that the petitioner was demanding money. There was, therefore, no material on the basis of which it was mentioned in the ground of detention that the petitioner was demanding money to celebrate the Id festival. It is true that in the first information report and also in the relevant General Diary entry it is only mentioned that the petitioner was threatening members of the public and demanding money from them and it was not mentioned that he was demanding money to celebrate Id. We, however, examined the record of the case and it appeared from it that along with copies of the first information report and the relevant General Diary entry, proposed grounds of detention were also submitted by the Police authorities to the District Magistrate before he passed the detention order against the petitioner. In the proposed grounds of detention it was mentioned that the petitioner was demanding money from the members of the Public to celebrate Id. It was, however, not necessary for the District Magistrate to furnish a copy of the proposed grounds of detention submitted to him by the Police authorities to the petitioner along with copies of the first information report and the relevant General Diary as the ground of detention mentioned what was contained in the proposed grounds of detention. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the ground of detention of the petitioner was not based on any material.

7. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was mentioned in the ground of detention that the activity of the petitioner had resulted in widespread terror in the locality, which affected the maintenance of public order, but this was neither mentioned in the first information report or in the relevant General Diary entry. There was, therefore, no material on which this was based. In the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate it has been stated that this was based on his personal knowledge. No document mentioning this fact was, therefore, required to be supplied to the petitioner. In view of the above-mentioned averment of the District Magistrate it cannot be held that the above-mentioned fact was not based on any material and that all be relevant material was not supplied to the petitioner.

8. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of detention was passed against the petitioner on 15.7.1983 after the Id had already been celebrated on 12.7.1983. As the petitioner was threatening and demanding money to celebrate the Id festival, communal riot could not have been created by him after the celebration of Id. We are unable to agree with this contention. As the petitioner had threatened to create communal riot before the Id festival took place the District Magistrate could come to the conclusion that there was likelihood of the petitioner creating communal riot in the city after the Id festival also, which disturbs the maintenance of public order. There was, therefore, sufficient material before the District Magistrate to come to the conclusion that the detention of the petitioner was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

9. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the State Government. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government on 18.8.1983, 15 days after he had submitted it. It was stated by the District Magistrate in his counter-affidavit that he sent a copy of the representation of the petitioner on 3.8.1983 to the Police authorities for their comments and he received the comments of the Police authorities on 8.8.1983 and he sent the representation of the petitioner to the State Government on 9.8.1983 along with his comments. It was stated in the counter-affidavit filed by Uma Shanker Srivastava Assistant in Confidential Section 6, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow that the representation of the petitioner was examined by the Joint Secretary Home and also the Home Secretary on 10.8.1983 and was sent to the Chief Minister on 11.9.1983 (11.8.1983?) for disposal. As the Chief Minister was not in Lucknow but was out of station it was returned from the office of the Chief Minister on 17.8.1983 and was rejected by the Chief Secretary U.P. Government, who was authorised to deal with the representation of the petitioner under the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution, on 18.8.1983. In our opinion, the delay of nine days in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the Chief Secretary of the U.P. Government has been satisfactorily explained. There was thus no unreasonable or avoidable delay in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the State Government. The contention of the petitioner that the representation of the petitioner was not expeditiously dealt with by the State Government is, therefore, without force.

10. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was in jail on 15.7.1983 the detention order of the District Magistrate dated 15.7.1983 was illegal. It is true that no reason is mentioned in the detention order for passing the order when the petitioner was already in jail, but it has been stated by the District Magistrate in his counter-affidavit that as he apprehended that the petitioner was likely to be released on bail in the case under Section 25 Arms Act in connection with which he was detained in jail, he considered it necessary to pass the detention order against the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is noteworthy that he has mentioned this in his report submitted to the State Government on 15.7.1983. The order of detention is thus not illegal.

11. The result, therefore, is that the detention of the petitioner in District Jail Moradabad cannot be held to be illegal.

12. There is no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.


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