- (1.) S. Rafat Alam, J. In the instant petition the sole petitioner has questioned the validity of the order of the District Magistrate, Bareilly dated 8-4-2004 detaining him under the provisions of Section 3 (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on account of his involvement in case crime No. 556 of 2003, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Anwala, District Bareilly.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and are on record. We have heard Shri H. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arvind Tripathi, learned AGA appearing for the State-respondents and Shri J. Lal, learned counsel for the Union of India. From a perusal of the grounds of detention it appears that the petitioner committed murder of Aditya Sharma a/a 13 years, the only son of the informant on 26-12-2003. It has been alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was a temporary teacher in Gyandeep Public School, Anwala of which the informant, Sunil Kumar Sharma is the Principal. However, few days prior to the alleged occurrence his services was terminated by the informant for his misconduct and for that reason he was having grudge against the informant. He also misbehaved with the informant on telephone on 25-12-2003 and threatened him to cause damage to his property and life. Following day i. e. on 26- 12-2003 his only son, Aditya Sharma went to bring milk in the evening from the house of Dharmendra Singh. However, when he did not return the informant and members of the family went to trace him out. During the course of search the informant along with Ishak Ahmad, Anil Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Sharma, Ghanshyam Sharma and others went to the house of the petitioner. When they entered inside the house they found dead body of his son Aditya lying on the floor and the petitioner unsuccessfully tried to run away. The informant along with his associates thereafter took him to the police station where an FIR was drawn and case crime No. 556 of 2003, under Section 302 IPC was registered. The District Magistrate having been satisfied with the material placed before him along with the report of the sponsoring authority passed the impugned order of detention, which is also approved by the State Government.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner challenged the order of detention mainly on the ground that the alleged act does not relate to the public order. It is argued that the alleged incident took place in the house of the petitioner and no body has seen it and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of breach of public order and, at most, it can be a case of failure of law and order, which can be dealt with under the Penal Code. We do not find any force in the submission. Whether an act amounts to breach of 'law and order' or 'public order' depend upon its extent and reach on the society and not upon the nature and quality of the alleged act. But where it affects the community at large on account of which the even tempo of the community is disturbed it becomes breach of public order. There is no doubt that there is thin distinction between 'public order's and 'law and order' and sometimes it overlaps, as the act of similar, nature, committed in different context and circumstances, causes different reaction, therefore, it is not the nature and quality of the act, but the degree an extent of its reach upon the society, which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order or breach of public order. A similar act in different context affect differently. On one hand it affects the law and order only and, on the other, public order, therefore, no straight jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether the alleged act comes within the ambit of public order or it is a simple case of law and order and each was to be tested independently on the basis of the material on record to find out as to whether the alleged act had potentiality to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community, which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the case in hand, it appears from the grounds or detention that the petitioner was working as temporary teacher in the school of which the informant was the principal and the informant took disciplinary action against him for his lapses and misconduct on account of which his services was terminated and immediately after his termination from service he threatened the informant on telephone and on the subsequent day the informant's son was found missing and his dead-body was ultimately recovered in the presence of the petitioner from his house.;