- (1.) IN both the petitions, questions of fact and law are similar and both the petitions can be decided by a common order to which the learned coun sel for the parties have no objection.
(2.) PETITIONERS of both the petitions have challenged their detention under the orders dated 12th August, 1997 passed by the respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Bulandshahr under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It appears that both the petitioners, Shakir and Shabbu, were ar rested on 4th August, 1997 under Section 3 of the U. P. (Prevention of) Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The case was registered as case crime No. 99 of 1997. Both the petitioners were traveling by truck No. HR 46/1016 in which cow flesh was being transported. The truck was in tercepted by the police near village Nibari Bagar. Both the petitioners were employed as cleaner on the said truck. Order of detention was passed on 12th August, 1997 and was served on petitioners the same day in jail. The petitioners were, however, granted bail in the aforesaid criminal case and released from jail on 21-8-1997. They remained out of jail upto 3rd March, 1998, on which date they surrendered. It is case of the respon dents, as stated in the counter-affidavit filed by Sri R. S. Agrawal, Joint Secretary to Government of U. P. in Home and Con fidential Department, Lucknow, that the petitioners were wrongly released on 21-8-1997 by mistake and negligence of the Deputy Jailer, district Jail Bulandshahr, for which a Magisterial enquiry was set up by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr. As soon as this fact came to the knowledge of the State Government, the State Government also ordered the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr to take neces sary action to re-detain the petitioners at once. The petitioners on knowing that they were wrongly released surrendered on 3-3- 1998 which was communicated to the State Government on 9-3-1998. The order of detention was approved by the State Government under Section 3 (4) of the Act on 23-8-1997. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 27-9-1997. The order was confirmed on 13-10-1997 for a period of 12 months with effect from 12-8-1997. Heard Sri D. R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. K. Tripathi, learned Additional Govern ment Advocate appearing for the respon dents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri K. N. Pandey for the respondent No. 4, Union of India.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners were lay man and they were totally unaware of the legal position that they could not be released, as the period of 12 months had not expired. It has also been submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioners that they, in anyway, colluded with the jail authorities for securing their release. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that actual offence was committed on 4-8-1997, more than one and half years have passed and the purpose of detention has already been served out. It is also submitted that only 11 days have been left to be served out, if the entire period of 12 months is calculated. In this connection it has been said that before passing of the impugned order of deten tion, the petitioners were already in jail for a period of 8 days and in this manner the difference remains only of 3 days, in the interest of justice they may be released. It has also been submitted that the petitioners are poor persons and their families have suffered a lot on account of their detention. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the period of detention of 12 months cannot be curtailed, and the petitioners are liable to remain under detention for the entire period.;