CHAMPION R SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA
LAWS(MEGH)-2013-6-1
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Decided on June 13,2013

Champion R Sangma Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MEGHALAYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The brief fact of the case in nut shell is that, one Shri. K. Shabong, Sub Inspector, Special Cell, East Khasi Hills District lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Pynursla Police Station alleging that he was deputed on 29.07.12 to conduct Naka with the Special Cell Team at Umkrem 'Pyrdiwah Axis'. At about 6:00AM, he noticed one person moving suspiciously in the forest area, apprehended him and came to know that he is Mr. Champion Sangma, Chairman of GNLA outfit organization. On the basis of the FIR, a case was registered as Pynursla P.S Case No 25 (7) 2012 u/s 16, 38 (1) and 38 (2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section -12 I.P. Act was registered. However, bail application was moved which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong and the accused was finally charge-sheeted.
(2.) The detenue was also shown arrested in connection with Nongstoin P.S Case No. 9 (2) of 2012 under Section 121 A/353/307/34 IPC, R/w Section 10/13 U.A.(P) Act, 1967 and Section 27 (2) of Arms Act and Nonstoin Police Station Case No. 10(2) of 2012 under Section 121 A/302/34 IPC, R/w Section 10/13 U.A.(P) Act 1967 and Section 27 of Arms Act. Thereafter, by detention order No EGH/CON.189 (MPDA)/ 2013/2 issued by the District Magistrate East Garo Hills Williamnagar dated 29.01.13. The petitioner/accused was detained under Section 3(1) of Meghalaya Prevention Detention Act, 1995 vide order dated 29.01.13. The Governor of Meghalaya approved the detention and the detenue was also supplied with a copy of the grounds of detention on the same date. The detenue vide representation dated 14.02.13 addressed to the respondent prayed for revocation of the same and finally approached this Court by way of this instant writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel Mr. S Dey appeared on behalf of the petitioner/accused argued that the petitioner was not informed about his right to make representation to the Central Government. Secondly, the petitioner's representation before the detaining authority i.e the District Magistrate concerned is still remained pending. Therefore, there is total violation of the provision of the Meghalaya Prevention Detention Act, 1995. In support of his submissions he relied on the following judgments passed in these cases (1) Hansaben Jayantilal Shah vrs- Union of India and Ors., 1995 4 SCC 51. (2) Vimalchand Jawantraj Jain vrs- Shri Pradhan and Ors., 1979 4 SCC 401. (3) Rongjam Momin vrs- Union of India and Ors, 2005 1 GauLT 173.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.