Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1990 (3) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sing the writ petition filed by the appellant, Vashisht Narain Karwaria, the detenu herein. The District Magistrate, Allahabad, in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) passed the impugned order of detention on 31.3.88 against the detenu on reaching his requisite subjective satisfaction on consideration of the materials placed before him that it had become necessary to pass the detention order with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The salient and material facts which necessitated the detaining authority to pass the impugned order, as set out in the grounds of detention are as fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd hurled bombs on the police party while fleeing away. His repeated firing and explosion of bombs created further panic and the people assembled for bidding the auction started running away and the nearby shopkeepers pulled down their shutters of their shops. The vehicles parked there fled away. Thus the public order was completely disrupted. In connection with this incident, a case was registered in crime No. 221/88 in the Colenolganj Police Station under Section 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The case is still under investigation. On the basis of the above material the detaining authority on being satisfied that there was apprehension of commission of act of violence at the hands of the detenu, which would be prejudicial to the mai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ced before the detaining authority any extraneous and irrelevant materials which might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority. It cannot be disputed--indeed there is none that the four documents referred to above, copies of which were furnished to the detenu have been placed before the detaining authority. It follows that the detaining authority passed this order only on consideration of the above said materials. In the confidential letter dated 31st March 1988 sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad to the detaining authority it is stated thus: It is stated that the accused is a hardened criminal and has a gang. Such persons are committing heinous crimes often which adversely affects the public order. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se averments are not made mention of in the grounds of detention. But can it be said that these materials placed before the authority might not have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in taking the decision of detaining the detenu? In our view, the above averments which are extraneous touching the character of the detenu though not referred to in the Grounds of detention, might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority to some extent one way or other .in reaching the subjective satisfaction to take the decision of directing the detention of the detenu. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Jain, had these extraneous materials not been placed before the detaining authority, he might or might not have passed this order. There .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. We are unable to see any force in the above submission. What Section 5A provides is that where there are two or more grounds covering various activities of the detenu, each activity is a separate ground by itself and if one of the grounds is vague, nonexistent, not relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such person or invalid for any other reason whatsoever, then that will not vitiate the order of detention. It is not the case that this impugned order has been made on the two or more grounds covering various activities of the detenu, but on the other hand the order has been passed on the sole ground relatable to a single incident. The conclusion .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates