RAM NEWAZ ALIAS BETA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-2-43
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 19,1965

Ram Newaz Alias Beta Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttar Pradesh and others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LALU GOPE,PETITIONER V. THE KING [REFERRED]
ROMESH THAPPAR V. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED]
PRITAM SINGH V/S STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
STATE OF BOMBAY V. ATMA RAM [REFERRED]
RAM KRISHAN BHARDWAJ PETITIONER V. THE STATE OF DELHI AND ORS. [REFERRED]
SHIBBAN LAL SAXENA,PETITIONER V. STATE OF UTTAT PRADESH AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION,MANIPUR,APPELLANT V. THOKCHOM BIRA SINGH [REFERRED]
DWARKA DAS BHATIA,PETITIONER V. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED]
RAVINDRA KUMAR SARDARI LAL,PETITIONER,V. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,DELHI [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Ram Newaz alias Beta has filed this petition Under Section 491 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)The Petitioner is a resident of Rukma Khurd Mazra Gautampur, Police Station Kotwali, Karvi, district Banda. Admittedly, he is connected with the business of the manufacture of Biri. According to the Petitioner, he is a contractor but, according to the State, he is only an employee of a firm which manufactures Biri. On the 5th of January, 1965 at 2 P.M. the Petitioner was arrested by the police at Banda Railway Station by the order of the District Magistrate of Banda which purported to be Under Section 3(1) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1900. On the 8th of January 1965 the grounds of his detention were furnished to him. In order to appreciate the points that arise for determination in this petition we consider it necessary to reproduce all the grounds verbatim. They are as follows:
1. That on 13.12.1959 Babu Lal S/o. Garib Das Jaiswal R/o. Kasba Manikpur, P.S. Manikpur, reported that you had threatened him with dire consequences and a report Under Section 506 IPC was lodged to this effect. Another report against you was lodged by Mst. Munnia widow of Hira Lal R/o. Patha, P.S. Manikpur, on 3.3.60 Under Section 506/504 IPC that you had threatened her. On 30.7.60 you threatened Ram Asrey alias Guni S/o Ram Chandra Brahmin R/o village Tikari H/o Semardaha, P.S. Kotwali Karvi, Banda, and a report Under Section 506 IPC was lodged against you. On 3.9.60 one Naib Husain alias Nathoo S/o Kaim Uddin R/o village Sutar Khana old Karvi lodged a report against you Under Section 504/506 IPC. On 23.9.60 Sri Liaqat Husain S/o Ata Husain R/o village Ram Nagar, at present residing in Karwi lodged a report Under Section 504/506 IPG against you.

2. That you on 30.3.62 at Railway Station Bahalpurwa Central Railway attempted to commit the murder of Sri Ranjit Singh Bhandari Inspector G.R.P. and his party and used firearms along with your gang of bad characters and were prosecuted for the said offence.

3. That on 10.2.63 in Purwa Gada khan R/o village Chandra Mara within the jurisdiction of P.S. Manikpur, you forcibly wanted to take Begar from one Lotan of the locality and on refusal by Jagdeo, his uncle, you along with other associates while being armed with fire arms fired at Jagdeo and his nephew Lotan in order to commit their murder.

4. That on 4.9.63 you beat Kalloo S/o Chhedi, R/o Gola Bazar, Purani Karvi, P.S. Karvi, on his refusal to go to Bahalpurwa with you.

5. That on 4.11.63 in village Sichari P.S. Manikpur you along with others forcibly kidnapped Aliva Kol at the point of fire-arms with intention to keep him in secret confinement.

6. That on 22.2.64 you along with Ram Lai and others beat Sri Mool Chand Shukla, Principal of a college of Manikpur. The Principal ran inside the room of Petrol Tank for safety, but you entered inside the room and beat him there too.

7. That on 26.11.64 you went to the house of Sri Kashi Prasad Chaurasia member of Nagarpalika Chitrakoot where you met his father and on his inability to produce Sri Kashi Prasad then and there, you left threatening him that he would get the dead body of his son Kashi Prasad 'on 1.12.64 in case Kashi Prasad is not produced before you.

8. That on 30.11.64 you forcibly put a garland of shoes on the neck of Kashi Prasad at his house with a view to insult and disgrace him.

9. That on 23.12.64 you got the shop of Sri jamuna Prasad forcibly closed and threatened that if he does not turn out Sri Kashi Prasad from his house, he would turn him out of the village and Kashi Prasad would be murdered.

10. That you were challaned Under Section 110 Code of Criminal Procedure and 107/117 Code of Criminal Procedure but you terrorised the witnesses so much that none could case to depose against you.

11. That regular complaints are being made verbally to all authorities against you as the people have become so scared that they will not complain in writing against you.

12. That your associates are all of ill-repute and have terrorised the people with your backing. Some of your associates like Shyama, Radhey, Jagdamba and Dadu are history sheeters and previous convicts.

13. That you have been from time to time proceeded against under the preventive sections like 107/117 Code of Criminal Procedure and 110 Code of Criminal Procedure which shows that there has always been a danger from you for breach of peace.

You by such action of yours are constantly terrorising the public of Karwi, Manikpur and suburbs and thereby want to establish a reign of terror in these localities which is highly prejudicial to the maintenance of the public peace and public order.

(3.)Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the legality of the Petitioner's detention mainly on two grounds. His first contention is that some of the grounds are wholly irrelevant and some others are too vague. With regard to the first contention he has referred us to grounds Nos. 2,3 and 13 first paragraph. As regards ground No. 2, the Petitioner along with some others was prosecuted for an offence punishable Under Section 307 of the IPC. He was tried by Sri Ram Autar Rastogi, the learned Temporary Sessions Judge of banda, who by his judgment dated the 31st of July, 1964 not only acquitted the Petitioner and his companions but also passed strictures against the prosecuting agency. He observed in his judgment as follows:
The oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution has been considered closely. The short comings, discrepancies, absurdities and incongruities in that evidence have also been pointed out during that discussion. I need not repeat them over again. It is difficult on that evidence even to accept that any encounter as alleged took place between the police party and the bad mashes at the alleged date, time and place, and much more to accept that the accused persons standing trial took part in that encounter.

A word also need be said regarding the investigation of the case. The investigation of the case lack much in straight forwardness. It is all fabricated and more farcical and superficial than real.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.