PARVEJ Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. This petition, under Article 226 of the constitution of India, takes exception to the detention order dated 15.3.2015 - Annexure -P/1, issued in exercise of power u/s. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention order refers to the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority for detaining the petitioner on that count as likely to indulge in offence of similar type, which may result in public order situation.

(2.) THE first contention argued before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the signature of the petitioner appearing on Annexure -R/3 at page 59, is a forged signature. This argument is on the assumption that since the signature of one Bhanu has been noticed on other documents which were served on the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. Similar signature is not found on the document at page 59 being order issued under the signature of District Magistrate, Seoni dated 15.3.2015. This ground, in our opinion, is completely unsubstantiated. In the first place, no such specific plea has been taken in the petition as filed. Secondly, it is founded on assumption that the signature of the petitioner appearing in document at page 59 is a forged signature. In our view, however, the requirement of taking acknowledgment of service of order is to place on record the fact that copy of the order was duly served on the petitioner. The fact that the signature of Bhanu is not appearing on document at page 59, does not mean that the said signature of the petitioner is forged. On comparison of the signature found on document at page 59 with admitted signatures of the petitioner on other documents, which were served on the petitioner in the presence of Bhanu, being grounds of detention and accompanying document is no different. It is not possible to presume that the signature of the petitioner has been forged on document at page 59. In the petition, no assertion is made that the impugned detention order has never been served on the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has annexed copy of detention order, at page 16 onwards, which means that it was duly served on the petitioner. In our opinion, the plea taken by the petitioner is founded on assumption. Notably, it is not the case of the petitioner that the copy of detention order was not served on him when he was detained as a consequence of that order, nor it is the case of the petitioner that the grounds of detention and the documents, on which reliance has been placed, were not supplied to the petitioner within the specified time.

(3.) THE next argument canvassed by the petitioner is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority is vitiated because the detaining Authority was influenced by the underlined statement of fact noted in the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, which reads thus: (emphasis supplied)