Javed Khan @ Mota vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4661 MP

                                   1
                                                    WP. No.11872/2021




HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT
                AT JABALPUR


Case Number and                    WP No.11872/2021
Parties Name
                                       Javed Khan @ Mota
                                                Vs.
                                         State of M.P.

Date of Order               25/08/2021
Bench Constituted           Division Bench:
                            Justice Prakash Shrivastava
                            Justice Virender Singh ________
Judgment delivered by       Justice Prakash Shrivastava
Whether approved for        No
reporting
Name of counsels for        Shri Ahadulla Usmani, Advocate
parties                     for the petitioner.

                            Shri Pradeep Singh, Government
                            Advocate for the respondents.
Law laid down                                   -
Significant paragraph                           -
numbers

                              ORDER

25.08.2021

Per: Prakash Shrivastava, J.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the preventive detention order dated 24.06.2021 detaining the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'NSA' ).

2. Brief facts are that the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali, District Chhatarpur had sent the communication dated 31.05.2021 to the Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur giving the details of the criminal activities and the cases registered against the petitioner and proposing initiation of the proceedings under the NSA. Considering the communication, the Superintendent of Police vide Memo dated

WP. No.11872/2021

07.06.2021 had conveyed to the District Magistrate about the criminal activities and the cases registered against the petitioner proposing passing of an order of preventive detention under the provisions of NSA. The District Magistrate/Collector, District Chhatarpur had then passed the impugned order of preventive detention dated 24.06.2021. The order of the District Magistrate was forwarded to the State Government on 25.03.2021. As per the reply of the respondent, the petitioner was informed of his right to make representation against the detention order. The order of detention was approved by the State Government. It was confirmed by the State Government on 24.06.2021 and intimation was sent to the Central Government. The order of detention has also been confirmed by the Advisory Board.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the correct status of outcome of the criminal cases was not placed before the District Magistrate inasmuch as the District Magistrate was not informed that the petitioner was acquitted in the cases in Sr. No.1, 4 and 7 mentioned in the grounds of detention. He further submits that it was not a case of emergent nature requiring invoking of provisions of NSA as there was a delay on the part of the authorities inasmuch as the report was sent by the SHO to SP on 31.05.2021, from SP to Collector on 07.06.2021 and then the Collector has passed the impugned order on 24.06.2021. He further submits that the case at Sr. No.19 has been falsely registered and cases at Sr. No.20 & 21 were registered on the same day which indicates the falsity of these cases.

4. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the due procedure has been followed and the cases in which the petitioner was acquitted have been considered and looking to the nature and gravity of offences

WP. No.11872/2021

registered against the petitioner, the provisions of NSA have rightly been invoked.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of the record, it is noticed that no argument has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner to show that there was any lapse on the part of the respondents in following the due procedure. The petitioner was informed about his right to make representation. The order of detention was approved by the State Government. The Advisory Board has also approved the order of detention and the same has been confirmed.

6. The grounds of detention reflect that as many as 21 cases have been registered against the petitioner between the period October, 2006 and April, 2021. In view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima vs. State of Manipur reported in (2012) 2 SCC 176, there should be live link between the detention and antecedent activities on the basis of which the detention order was passed. In the present case, even if the older cases are ignored then also it is noticed that in the recent past, the cases relating to offence of extortion under Section 384, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt under Section 386 of the IPC and making preparation for dacoity under Section 399 of the IPC have been registered, therefore, there is a live link between the recent offences which are registered against the petitioner with the order of detention.

7. In terms of Section 3(2) of the NSA, an order of detention can be passed to prevent a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The public order is a concept narrower than the concept of law and order. Public

WP. No.11872/2021

order is the even tempo of life of the community as a whole or even a specific locality. It is the potentiality of the Act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which make it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order [State of U.P. vs. Sanjai Pratap Gupta reported in (2004) 8 SCC 591)].

8. Having regard to the nature of offences which are registered against the petitioner specially the offence of extortion under Section 384 of the IPC, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt under Section 386 of the IPC and making preparation for dacoity under Section 399 of the IPC, we are of the opinion that these activities are prejudicial to public order.

9. So far as the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted of the offence at Sr. No.1, 4 and 7 mentioned in the grounds of detention, it is noticed that the respondents have filed the grounds of detention as Annexure R/2. Counsel for the respondents has pointed out the material enclosed with the grounds of detention and has referred to the chart enclosed therewith which clearly mentioned that the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case mentioned at Sr. No.4 and the criminal case at Sr. No.1 and 7 was compromised. Hence, the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that the relevant fact in this regard has not been considered by the detaining authority is found to be devoid of any merit. Even otherwise, offence at Serial No.1, 4, and 7 are old offences and if order of detention can be sustained on the basis of other case registered against him then acquittal in those earlier offences is not so much relevant.

WP. No.11872/2021

10. So far as the issue of the delay at different stages is concerned, it is noticed that the SHO had sent the report to the Superintendent of Police on 31.05.2021, the Superintendent of Police had sent the report to the District Magistrate on 07.06.2021 and the District Magistrate had passed the impugned order on 24.06.2021. This indicates that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the respective authorities. The Supreme Court in the matter of Hasan Khan Ibne Haider Khan vs. R.H. Mendonca reported in AIR 2000 SC 1146 has rejected the similar ground in a case where the inquiry was completed in February end and final order was passed on 12th of April by observing that -

"12. Mr. Jain has further submitted that there was delay in passing the detention order. We find that the inquiry was completed during the last part of February at the level of Deputy Commissioner of Police and the final order was passed on 12.04.1999. It cannot be said that there was undue delay and action was being taken in a routine manner, as after completion of inquiry the matter had to be examined at various levels and finally the orders were passed by the Commissioner."

11. Counsel for the petitioner has also raised a submission that cases at Sr. No.19, 20 and 21 have been falsely registered but the same is subject matter of trial and at this stage no conclusion can be drawn. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Mangal Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015 (4) MPLJ 439 but in that case also it has been held that even one valid ground can furnish the basis to sustain the order of detention.

12. The reply of the respondents also reveals that in order to put a check on the activities of the petitioner an order of externment was also passed on 14.08.2018 but even thereafter

WP. No.11872/2021

the petitioner had continued his involvement in the criminal activities.

12. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of detention does not suffer from any infirmity and no case for interference is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

                                          (Prakash Shrivastava)              (Virender Singh)
                                                 Judge                            Judge
YS

Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR
SHRIVASTAVA
Date: 2021.08.25 17:48:58 +05'30'