- (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad, dated 11-12-2002 detaining the petitioner under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') because of his involvement in Case Crime No. 253 of 2002 under Sections 255/258/259/260 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and they are on record. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. It appears from the grounds of detention a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition that when the Senior Sub-Inspector Sri Ved Prakash along with other police personnel reached near Medical Chauraha at about 8. 15 p. m. on 10th October, 2002, they found four persons carrying polythene packet in their hands in a suspicious manner on west south corner of the road. On seeing the police personnel, all these four persons including the petitioner started moving towards Civil Lines. However, the police party ultimately arrested them near the house of the Principal of the Government Inter College and on search forged stamp papers were recovered from their possession. They were accordingly brought to the Police Station and taken into custody and an FIR was lodged which was registered as Case Crime No. 253 of 2002 under Sections 255, 258, 259 and 260 IPC. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad vide his letter dated 6-11-2002 sent proposal for the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of National Security Act whereupon the District Magistrate, Allahabad passed the impugned order detaining the petitioner which was also approved by the State Government on 13-11-2002 as required under sub-section 4 (3) of the Act.
(3.) IT is contended that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family and is a Mechanic of TV and VCR and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime and because of his false implication in the solitary incident the order of detention has been passed without proper application of mind by the detaining authority. IT is submitted that the petitioner was never arrested on the spot along with forged stamp papers as has been alleged in the grounds of detention and in the FIR. IT is claimed that on 9-10-2002 at about 7. 30 p. m. the Kotwali City Police took the petitioner from his house and detained him in the police lock up. Petitioner's father-in-law, therefore, sent telegrams to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad and the Chairman Human Rights Commission on 10-10-2002 at about 4. 30 p. m. stating the above facts which was not considered either by the detaining authority or by the State Government and the Advisory Board. IT is also submitted that writ petition No. 6631 of 2002 filed on behalf of the co-accused Syed Mehtab Alam has been allowed by this Bench vide order dated 7- 7-2003. IT is also contended that the representation of the petitioner sent to the Central Government has not been disposed merely on the ground that it has not been addressed to the Central Government. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, opposed the writ petition. We have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides. It is admitted position that the representation of the petitioner was not decided by the Central Government on the solitary ground that it has not been addressed to it. In Habeas Corpus Petition No. 53369 of 2002, Garibullah v. State of U. P. & others, alongwith the connected writ petitions disposed of vide order dated 24-4-2003, Writ Petition No. 55376 of 2002, Shahzad v. Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut & others, disposed of on 25-4-2003 and Habeas Corpus Petition No. 7138 of 2003, Yaqoob v. Union of India & others, disposed of on 25-4- 2003, this Bench held that continued detention of the detenu is vitiated on account of non-disposal of their representation by the Central Government on the ground that the same has not been addressed to it, although copy of the same was sent to it by the District Magistrate and, therefore, non-consideration of representation is violative of the constitutional safeguard.;