ANAND PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of detention dated 3-5-1989 passed by the District/ Magistrate, Farrukhabad, U. P. as confirmed by the Government of U.P. in their order dated 20-6-1989 detaining one Lakhmi Chand Gupta under the National Security Act and to issue a writ of habeas corpus releasing the said detenu from such detention. The order of detention was made under S. 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 by the District Magistrate on the ground that with a view to prevent the detenu from indulging in unlawful activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of essential services and supplies required for public life it was necessary to keep him under detention. The detenu made his representation to the Advisory Board. On receipt of the report of the Advisory Board to the effect that in its opinion there are sufficient grounds for detention, the Government after a consideration of the report confirmed the order of detention under S. 12(1) of the Act and directed that the said Lakhmi Chand Gupta be detained for a period of 12 months from 3-5-1989 the date of detention order. This writ petition for habeas corpus has been filed by the brother-in-law of the detenu.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are absolutely no grounds or basis on which the detaining authority could have satisfied himself that the detenu had been engaged in criminal activities which are injurious to the maintenance of essential services and supplies required for public life or that the detenu is likely to indulge in any such activity in future. Secondly, there is an unexplained delay from the date of the alleged incident of crime and the date of detention vitiating the satisfaction and the detention order itself. The circumstances referred to in the order of detention does not lead to nor there was anything on which the District Magistrate can come to a conclusion that there is inherent criminal propensity in the detenu which could lead the District Magistrate to infer that there is every likelihood of the detenu repeating the alleged unlawful activity.

(3.) The facts relating to the incident which is referred to in the order of detention as the ground for detention are as follows:On the 15th of February, 1989 the Junior Engineer, Tubewell Electrification Sub-Division, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Police Station Chhibranau, Distt. Farrukhabad that electric wires to a length of about 2900 mtrs. in 11 K.V. Visya Bank Feeder had been cut and stolen away on 14-2-1989 by some unknown persons and that the value of the loss to the Electricity Board amounted to Rs. 21,500/-. This F.I.R. was registered as Crime Case No. 51 of 1989 under section 379 IPC in the said Police Station and it was shown therein that three persons, namely, Jagdish, Santosh and Munshi Sharma were the accused. Santosh is the brother of Jagdish. On the 3rd of March, 1989 the house of Jagdish was raided and two bags filled with stolen aluminium electric wire recovered. Jagdish gave an information that a person at Vishnugarh Road claiming himself to be a resident of Delhi used to purchase stolen electric wire from the person cutting the electric wire stealthily. On this information of Jagdish the factory of the detenu at Vishnugarh Road was raided One Munshi Sharma who is stated to be the servant of the detenu was found in possession of about 20 k.g. of melted electric wire and that was seized from him under a recovery memo. The order of detention stated that Munshi Sharma had confessed that the stolen electric wire had been purchased by him from Jagdish and Santosh. The detenu was arrested on the 2nd of May, 1989. On the same date the bail application was moved on behalf of the accused. After setting out this incident the grounds of detention stated: