R.A.Misra, J., - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Raghvendra Singh alias Chhote Raja challenges the validity of his detention order of District Magistrate, Moradabad passed on 3rd October 1982 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 (for short the Act) on his being satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting In any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
(2.) The order of detention is based on three grounds, the first of which relates to an incident of 15th August 1981 at 5.30 P.M. where in the petitioner is alleged to have made an attempt to commit the murder of Chhote Singh resident of Makrandpur and fired as many as 250 rebunds by his gun alongwith his associates, causing tension and creating terror amongst the persons of the locality. A case under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C. was registered at the Police Station on 16th f August, 1981. The case was investigated, charge-sheet submitted and trial was alleged to be pending before Additional Sessions Judge VIII Kanpur. In support of this ground copies of two first information report, General Diary were supplied to the detenu, the second ground relates to an incident of 23rd of September 1981 at 10 A.M. wherein the detenu alongwith his 9 to 20 associates armed with guns, rifles, stain guns committed dacoity at the residence of Prem Chandra in village Tilsara causing tension and creating terror amongst the residents of the area. First information report was lodged by Prem Chandta on 24.9.81. The case was registered. One accused Vishram Singh who was arrested on 3rd October 1981 disclosed petitioners involvement in the Commission of the dacoity. This fact was mentioned in General Diary No. 9 dated 3.10.81. Ghanshyam Singh accused who was subsequently arrested corroborated the aforesaid facts in his statement. That fact was recorded in G.D. No. 1 dated 6.10.81. The detenu was put up for identification on 30th March, 1982 but on account of fear the witnesses did not identify him and final report under section 169 Cr.P.C. was submitted. In support of this ground copies of aforesaid first information reports and General Diaries were supplied to the petitioner. The third and the last ground relates-to an incident which is alleged to have occurred on the night between 27th and 28th of March 1982 at Village Bhitipur wherein the petitioner alongwith 15 or 20 others is alleged to have committed dacoity with murder. First Information Report was lodged at 7.30 A M. On 28th March, 1982 and case was registered at the police station. The petitioner was arrested on 30th March, 1982 at 9.30 A.M. and a 12 bore country made pistol alongwith ten live cartridges were recovered from his custody. He made a confession of having committed the aforesaid dacoity. He was put up for identification and was identified by Ram Chandra and Shaufi Lal witnesses on 26th April, 1982. Copies of first information report, General Diary and his confessional statement were supplied to him in support of this ground.
(3.) The respondents filed counter affidavit in compliance to the notices served upon the regarding this petition. The petitioner subsequently filed rejoinder affidavit and in para 15 thereof he took the plea that his detention was vitiated inasmuch as the detaining authority did not furnish to him the copies of the police report mentioning various offences said to have been committed by him and the recommendation made by the Police Officer to detain the petitioner which has resulted in denial of opportunity to make an affective representation. In para 20 of the rejoinder affidavit he took the plea that none of the documents supplied to the detenu furnished any material to show that any terror or panic prevailed in the locality as mentioned in the grounds of detention. According to the petitioner the said facts had been mentioned in the grounds without there being any material in support of the same and in case if there was any such material the same was not furnished to the petitioner to enable him to make an effective representation. The learned Government Advocate raised objection saying that either the petitioner should not be permitted to raise these new points at this stage or the respondents should be afforded an opportunity to meet these allegations. The record of the case was available in the court and we perused the same. Prima facie it appeared to us that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that the petitioner was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as recited to the order dated 3.10.81 based on the report submitted by Inspector of Police Station Ghatampur. It also appeared to us that a copy of this report was not supplied to the detenu. Having regard to all these facts we thought it proper to permit the petitioner to argue these two points and to question the validity of detention also on the ground that material relied upon by the District Magistrate was not supplied to the detenu and as such his detention would be rendered invalid. However, before expressing our considered opinion on this aspect of the case we thought it proper that the respondents should be given an opportunity to explain to this court and if necessary with reference to the record of the case as to what was the material that was relied upon by the District Magistrate for believing the various facts stated in the three grounds permitting petitioners detention and also to satisfy the court that in fact all the material that had been relied upon by the District Magistrate for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was supplied to him along with grounds of detention. The Government Advocate was, therefore, allowed sufficient opportunity to tile supplementary affidavit. The opportunity has been availed and Sri Anurag Goel, District Magistrate who had passed the detention order has filed supplementary affidavit wherein he has tried to explain the fact that he had supplied copies of the material documents relied upon by him to the detenu alongwith the grounds of detention. We would like to quote below para 2 of the supplementary affidavit of Sri Goel which reads as below: That it may be stated that while examining the case of the petitioner with a view to decide whether any action under the provision of National Security Act were necessary against him or not, the deponent had summoned the Station House Officer of Police Station, Ghatampur at the time of examining the said proposal. The deponent has perused the entire material furnished by the Superintendent of Police Kanpur Dehat which included a dopier of Station House Officer, Ghatampur as also the first information reports and G.D. extracts mentioned in the said report of the Police Station concerned. The deponent has based his satisfaction after perusing the first information reports as also the G.D. entry mentioned in the grounds of detention. The deponent had also perused the brief description of the Criminal Activity mentioned in the said report of police station concerned. However, whereas the deponent did find the fact of tension prevailing in the locality mentioned in the first information report relating to ground No. 1 this assertion was not found in the F.I.R. or G.O. entries relating to grounds Nos. 2 and 3. The deponent was consequently not prepared to accept the submissions made in the police report of police station concerned but the Station House Officer of Ghatampur Police Station Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh told the deponent that he had personally verified this assertion and had found the fact to be correct that after the incident the terror had prevailed in the nearby locality as is mentioned both in the grounds Nos. 2 and 3 also. Similarly Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh had told the deponent that he had further verified the fact that the petitioner was instrumental in getting the witnesses terrorized with the result that in his test identification parade in respect of crime No. 479 the witnesses had not identified him. The deponent had consequently relied upon the facts orally communicated to him by Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh, with the result that these facts were incorporated in the ground of detention. The deponent further asserts that he had in fact refused to accept the said assertions contained in the police report but he relied upon the statements made by the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned in the manner as has been mentioned above. Since this fact was consequently part of own know ledge of the deponent which had been reduced into writing in the ground of detention itself, there was no question of any material in support of the said fact being supplied to the petitioner. Moreover it may be stated that these are the facts which constitute the background making it necessary to pass the order of detention against the petitioner and do not constitute his main activities. The main activities of the petitioner as would be clear from the perusal of the grounds that he had been recklessly attacking people in committing dacoities with the result that he was likely to affect the maintenance of public order future also. Since all the basic facts and material in support of the real ground of detention had been furnished to the detenu and since even other antecedent facts such as the resultant terror and non- identification by the witnesses resulting in submission of the final report against the accused had been veritably reproduced in the ground of detention itself, It cannot be said that the petitioners right to make an effective representation against the grounds of detention had in any manner been affected by not supplying to him separately the same facts which had come to the notice of the deponent in the manner as mentioned above.;