- (1.) M. C. Jain, J. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 9-5-2003 passed by respondent No. 1 District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act, 1980.
(2.) THE grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-2 of the petition. On 5-4-2003, S. K. Singh S. O. of Police Station Babu Purwa was patrolling the area when he was informed by an informer that in the street in front of Idgah near Madarsa under construction, in the house of Guddu Panchhi, he and his companions were slaughtering cows. He, accompanied by other police personnel, reached that place at about 8 p. m. and found four persons skinning off a she-calf and a cow after slaughtering them. THE petitioner's companions Mahtab and Syyad Husain were apprehended at the spot with knife and axe, but the petitioner and his companion Guddu Panchhi managed to escape. Slaughtered cow and she-calf were found lying at the spot. THE news of the incident spread in the area like wild fire. Members of the two communities of the society, i. e. , Hindus and Muslims collected at the spot in agitated mood and started raising slogans against one another. Communal harmony was disturbed and the atmosphere became tense. THE shopkeepers started downing their shutters. People ran helter-skelter. THE public order was completely disturbed. S. O. informed the higher authorities on telephone and requisitioned additional force to control the situation. Case Crime No. 217 of 2003 under Sections 3/5/8 of U. P. Cow Slaughter Act was registered against the petitioner and others. Counter-affidavit have been filed from the side of the respondents including the Union of India- respondent No. 4. But no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed. We have heard Sri G. C. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned A. G. A. on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri J. Lal on behalf of Union of India-respondent No. 4 Sri Saxena has confined his argument to this aspect of matter that the incident was not relatable to public order. Instead, it could at best be the law and order problem wherefor a case under Cow Slaughter Act had already been registered. Thus, it has been submitted by him that the detention of the petitioner under National Security Act is illegal. He has relied upon the case of Baghauti Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1999 (2) JIC 1 (All) (LB), in which it was observed that solitary crime though hazardous but not in full view of public, did not have it's reach to disturb public order. it may, however, be pointed out that there is 9 Judges' decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General for India and others v. Amratlal Prajivandas and others, 1994 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1325, that the detention order can be passed on one single ground. Even one prejudicial act can be treated as sufficient in forming the requisite satisfaction for detaining a person under the law of preventive detention. Another case cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that of Rashid v. State of U. P. , 2001 (1) JIC 765 (All) : 2000 (41) ACC page 930, saying that disturbance of law and order is not equal to public order. There can be no quarrel with this proposition.
(3.) OBVIOUSLY, it is the reaction or fall out of an incident in the society which is determinative as to whether it was only disturbance of law and order or that of public order. In the present case, there was a live link between the alleged criminal activity of the petitioner of cow slaughtering and the purpose of detention. The act was clearly prejudicial to public order as is borne out from the grounds of detention reiterated by respondent No. 1 District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in his counter-affidavit. The act of the petitioner offended the religious feelings of a sect of society venerating cow and its progeny, besides being in contravention of U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. The incident disturbed the even tempo of the life of the society. Members of two communities thronged the spot, shouting slogans against one another. The shops were closed and public tranquillity was disturbed in the area with tempers of the two communities of the society running high. Additional force had to be deployed in the area to restore the confidence of the people and for the return of normalcy. The incident adversely affected the social harmony, created communal tension and disturbed public order of the area. The matter certainly pertains to public order and not to law and order. We, therefore, reject the sole argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition that it was a matter of law and order only. We find the incident, in which the petitioner was allegedly involved, to be that of public order having damaged the harmony of the society, disturbing public tranquillity. In view of the above discussion, the petition is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;