R.A.MISRA, J. - (1.) BY this petition un­der Article 226 of the Constitution the pe­titioner has challenged the order of deten­tion dated October 6, 1982 passed by Sri B.B. Sinha, District Magistrate, Moradabad under Section 3(2) of the National Secu­rity Act with a view to prevent the peti­tioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
(2.) THE petitioner was arrested on October 4, 1982 in a crime under Section 307 I.P.C. on the basis of a report lodged against him and few others on October 3, 1982. The impugned order of detention was passed on October 6, 1982 and the grounds were served upon him in jail on October 8, 1982. He made a representation on October 21, 1982 and it was forwarded by the detain­ing authority to appropriate Government on October 25, 1982. The representation was rejected on October 30, 1982. It has been deposed on behalf of the petitioner in para 8 of the petition that he was in jail on the date when the detention order dated October 6, 1982 (Annexure-1 to the petition) was passed and we would like to reproduce this para of the petition which runs as below: - "That admittedly the petitioner was in jail on the date when the detention or­der dated October 6, 1982, Annexure-1, was passed. The preventive action pos­tulate that if a preventive step is not ta­ken the person said to be prevented may indulge into an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In other words unless the activity is interdected by a preventive detention order the activity which is being indulged into is likely to be repeated. This is the postulate of Section (2) of the Act. The subjective detention order of the District Magistrate does not disclose that the petitioner who is already in jail and yet a preventive detention or­der is a compelling necessity. The deten­tion order does not indicate that the peti­tioner being under detention in respect of an offence under Section 307 of the In­dian Penal Code and is not a free person to indulge into a prejudicial activity which is required to be prevented by a detention order. The detention order, Annexure-1, has been passed in a routine manner without applying its mind just to create terror in the minds of the public at large and nothing else." and the contentions of this para have been verified by the deponent Sri Ashraf Khan by personal knowledge. The District Magis­trate Sri B.B. Sinha has in his counter affidavit in para 8 replied the aforesaid allega­tions as below: "That in reply to the averment made in paragraph 8 of the petition, it is stated that the deponent was aware of the fact that the petitioner was in jail when he passed the detention order but the depo­nent apprehended that the petitioner will be enlarged on bail and will take part in the activities prejudicial to the mainten­ance of public order. This fact was men­tioned in the communication to the State Government which the deponent sent on the same day alongwith the copies of the detention order, grounds of detention and all the material connected therewith."
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate has not been properly verified and the relevant portions of the verification clause have been left totally blank. It is, therefore, not possible to find out as to which facts he has verified to be true on the basis of his personal knowledge or otherwise on basis of information receiv­ed or on the basis of records. The reasons for verification of affidavit are to enable the court to find out which facts can be said to be proved on the basis of affidavit evidence of rival parties. Allegations may be true to knowledge or allegations may be true to information received from persons or allegations may be based on records. The importance of verification is to test the genu­ineness and authenticity of allegations and also to make the deponent responsible for allegations. In essence the verification is rebuked to enable the court to find out as to whether it will be safe to act on such affi­davit evidence. In absence of a proper verification, the affidavit cannot be admitted in evidence. In taking this view we are supported by the observations made in A. K. K. Nambiar v. Union of India and another (A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 552.). In the instant case the affidavit filed by the detaining authority has not been pro­perly verified and as such it is not possible to believe that the District Magistrate was aware of the fact that the petitioner was al­ready in jail and yet he applied his mind and found compelling reasons to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future. This awareness does not appear in the order passed by the de­taining authority and the affidavit is not at all reliable to justify the impugned deten­tion order. In Devi Lal Mahato v. State of Bihar (A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1548.) it has been held:- "One can envisage a hypothetical case in which a preventive detention or­der may have to be made against a person already deprived of his personal liberty by being confined or detained in jail but in such a situation the detaining authority must show awareness of this fact that the person against whom the detention order is proposed to be made is already in jail and is incapable of acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and yet for the reasons which may appeal to the District Magistrate on which his subjective satisfaction is grounded a preventive detention order is required to be made. This awareness must appear either in the order or in the affidavit justi­fying the impugned detention order when challenged." ;