BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Amit Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mrs. Nuzhat Parveen Advocate on behalf of Union of India, respondent no. 4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The habeas corpus petition is taken up for final hearing.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 1.10.2009 under the provisions of Section 3(3) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as NSA), passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur respondent no. 2 detaining the petitioner as a preventive measure after he was involved in a criminal case. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was taken into custody in connection with case crime No. 707 of 2009 for an offence under Sections 489-B and 489-C I.P.C., Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur. On 6.7.2009 at 14.30 hours the petitioner along with another was taken into custody. Both the persons were found in possession of fake currency notes 218 in number of Rs. 500 denomination, total amount of Rs. 1,09,000/-. The F.I.R./Recovery memo mentions the numbers of those fake currency notes and further allegation is that the accused admitted that they bring these counterfeit notes from the neighboring country Nepal. The detention order was served while the petitioner was already in jail. A report was submitted by the police of Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur. On the basis of said report, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur examined the entire facts and record and thereby arrived at a subjective satisfaction that circulation of these counterfeit notes in the society will impair the national economy and also will hamper the essential services to the public at large. Therefore, the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur was of the considered view that to prevent recurrence of such an offence the petitioner was liable to be detained as a preventive measure under Section 3(3) of NSA. This was also necessary because the petitioner was all along making an effort to be enlarged on bail though his bail application was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge but the bail application was also pending in the High Court. Notice was already given and it was in these circumstances, the District Magistrate considered it proper and necessary to detain the petitioner.
(3.) THE detention order has been challenged on a number of grounds:- The first challenge is that the District Magistrate has passed the detention order mechanically upon non-existent facts and was led away by the assertions in the police report preferred by the police of police station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur. The District Magistrate has not applied his independent mind before passing the detention order.;