A.K.Roopanwal, J. - (1.) WE have heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.K. Sisodia, learned AGA for the State, Mr.N.B. Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India and perused the record.
(2.) IN this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia the petitioner Jafar Hussain has challenged the validity of the detention order dated 19-5-2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor, in exercise of the powers under Sec tion 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This de tention order was passed on a solitary inci dent giving rise to Crime No. 90 of 2008, u/Ss. 489B and 489C I.P.C., Police Station Nahtaur, District Bijnor. According to the FIR of the case, on 1-2-2008 Mr. Shyamveer Singh, Station Officer, Police Station Nahtaur, District Bijnor, got an information that two persons on a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle are present in the town of Nahtaur and trying to use as genuine forged or counterfeit currency notes. On this infor mation the S.O. tried to procure public wit nesses but none became ready. The police party came at Jhalu Chauraha where the in former pointed out the above two persons to the police. After some time these persons went to a liquor shop and demanded two quarters of liquor. The salesman supplied the same. These persons took out bundles of currency notes from their pockets and each of them tried to give a currency note of Rs. 500/- to the salesman on which the police party ap prehended them. It was 6.10 p.m. One of them disclosed his name as Mahmood and the other was the present petitioner. The memo of the recovered notes was prepared at the spot. As the act of the petitioner was prejudi cial to the maintenance of supplies and ser vices of the Indian currency, hence the Sta tion Officer, Police Station Nahtaur, District Bijnor, sent a report to the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, for detaining the petitioner un der the provisions of the Act. The Superin tendent of Police, Bijnor, being satisfied with the report of the Station Officer, Police Station Nahtaur, and the recommendation of the Circle Officer Police, Police Station Dhampur, Bijnor, and the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Bijnor, thereon recommended the case of the District Magistrate, Bijnor, for detaining the petitioner under the Act. The District Magistrate went through all the ma terials supplied by the sponsoring authority and finding it a fit case for detaining the peti tioner under the Act, detained him under the Act vide order dated 19-5-2008. The order was served upon the petitioner, who made representations before the State of U.P. and the Central Government. The State Govern ment approved the detention order on 27-5-2008 and this approval was communicated to the petitioner through the District Authorities of the State Government through Radiogram and a letter dated 27-5- 2008. A copy of the detention order, the grounds of detention and all other connected papers received from the District Magistrate, Bijnor, were also sent to the Central Government by Speed Post on 28-5- 2008. The case of the petitioner was also referred to the Advisory Board by the State Government and the Advisory Board after giving personal hearing to the petitioner found that the petitioner was detained on sufficient grounds. Thereafter the State Government confirmed the detention order and directed that the petitioner shall be detained for twelve months from the date of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bijnor.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner chal lenged the detention order on the ground that there was no cogent material before the de taining authority on the basis of which he could reach the requisite satisfaction that the petitioner could repeat the alleged prejudicial activity in future. According to him, the soli tary act complained of against the petitioner was not sufficient to indicate in absence of any other cogent material that there was a like lihood of the petitioner repeating the same in cident in future. To the above, it was replied by the learned counsel for the respondents that the satisfaction recorded by the detaining author ity to the effect that there was likelihood that the petitioner could repeat the prejudicial act in future was based on cogent material namely the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, and therefore, it cannot be said that the satisfaction recorded by the Dis trict Magistrate was without any basis. It was also argued that the nature of the incident, which was the basis for passing the detention order was such, as itself indicated that there could be every likelihood of the petitioner in volving himself in the same activity in future. They also refuted the argument of the petitioner's counsel that single case cannot be the basis for passing the valid detention order.;