Virendra Chandan vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 12556 MP

                                                           1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                                                 CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                       &
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                              ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                           WRIT PETITION No. 10886 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         VIRENDRA CHANDAN S/O SHRI NARENDRA CHANDAN,
                         AGED      ABOUT     40     YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                         BUSINESSMAN/WARD MEMBER R/O MILCHAL LALBAG
                         DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI M.P. TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
                               SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VALLABH
                               BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    THE   COLLECTOR/DISTRICT  MAGISTRATE
                               BURHANPUR DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         3.    THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BURHANPUR
                               DISTRICT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         4.    THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER LALBAG DISTRICT
                               BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI SUYASH THAKUR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
                         Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
                                                            ORDER

The case of the petitioner is that by the impugned order dated 16.03.2023 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 8/7/2023 11:01:30 AM

and thereafter the extended order dated 12.06.2023, the petitioner has been kept under preventive detention in exercise of their power under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The grounds of detention have also been served on him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that none of the provisions of the Act has been complied with. That there has been a gross violation of the requirements of the Act. That various procedures are required to be followed which has not been complied with by the State.

The State have filed their reply. They have indicated the manner in which the case of the petitioner has been dealt with. The various dates applicable to

the petitioner are narrated herein as follows:-

"13.03.2023 Respondent no.4 i.e. the Station House Officer Police Station Lalbag, District Burhanpur submitted a representation before Respondent no.3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, district Burhanpur (M.P.) and recommended that action of preventive detention under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 must be initiated against the detenue. Copy of representation/recommendation dated 13.03.2023 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-1.

13.03.2023 The Superintendent of Police, Burhanpur after considering the representation submitted by Respondent No. 4 submitted a report/representation before the District Magistrate, Burhanpur (M.P.) recommending that the proceedings U/s 3(2) of N.S.A. must be initiated against the Detenue. Copy of report / representation dated 13.03.2023 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-2.

16.03.2023 That the detaining authority i.e. Respondent No. 2 after careful consideration of the recommendation issued by Respondent No. 3& Respondent No. 4 respectively and after due application of mind keeping n light the facts of the case, recorded its substantive satisfaction that proceedings u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 must be initiated against the detenue. The order dated 16.03.2023 was issued whereby the detenue was sought to be kept in preventive detention for the period of 3 months from the date of actual detention. Copy of the said order is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-3.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 8/7/2023 11:01:30 AM

16.03.2023 The Respondent No. 2 i.e. the District Magistrate, District Burhanpur (M.P.) in exercise of the mandate conferred by section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980, served the grounds of detention over to the detenue. Copy of the said order dated 16.03.2023 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-4. 27.03.2023 The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (4) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 has approved the order of detention dated 16.03.2023 within a period of 11 days. Copy of the order dated 27.03.2023 is enclosed herein as ANNEXURE R-5.

11.04.2023 The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (5) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 has reported the detention order to the Central Government along with the grounds on which the order of preventive detention has been made in the proforma specified therein.

11.04.2023 The State Government in exercise of power and mandate provided under Section 9, 10 & 11 of the National Security Act 1980 referred the order of preventive detention dated 16.03.2023 passed against the detenue to the advisory board. The advisory board submitted its report over to the State Government and opined that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenue / detenue and accordingly the State Government confirmed the order of prevention detention dated 16.03.2023. 31/05/2023 Respondent No. 4 wrote a representation to the Respondent No. 3 seeking extension of the detention of the detenue stating that the situation and the conditions that warranted the preventive detention of the detenue in the first place and still in motion, and the threat of the detenue acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India is still in place. 12/06/2023 The respondent no. 3 wrote a letter to the Respondent No. 2 requesting that the period of detention be extended in compliance of the powers conferred under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act. A copy of said letter is filed as Annexure R-6. 12.06.2023 That, the Respondent No. 2 passed a reasonable and speaking order after due consideration of the material at hand and due application of mind, bearing No.2819/2023 whereby the respondent No. 2 was of the opinion that the period of detention ought to be extended for a further period of three months i.e. 16/06/2023 to 16/09/023, and wrote a letter to the respondent No. 1 (copy thereof is filed as Annexure R-7). Similarly, a letter was written to the Respondent No. 3 whereby the respondent No. 2 informed respondent No. 3 that the proposal for extension has been forwarded to the Respondent No. 1, and requested Respondent No. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 8/7/2023 11:01:30 AM

3 to provide a copy of the order/proposal dated 12/06/2023 to the detenue. A copy of the order extending the period of preventive detention is filed as Annexure R-8.

13.06.2023 The respondent No. 1 passed an order after due consideration and application of mind, and arrived at a conclusion the period of preventive detention ought to be extended in order to ensure that the detenue with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the securityof India, and shall cause interference with the maintenance of law and order in the area, and that it is probable that the detenue will commit serious offences if let out of detention.

14.06.2023 That, the order of extension of period of preventivedetention was duly communicated to the Petitioner on 13/03/2023, and a copy of said communication depicting receipt by the detenue was sent to the Respondent No. 2 by Respondent No. 4. A copy of said letter along with acknowledgement of receipt by the Petitioner is filed herewith as Annexure R-9."

Therefore, it cannot be said that the requirements of law have been violated.

On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this petition. We have considered the grounds of detention as submitted to the petitioner. The grounds of detention would indicate a list of 76 cases filed against him. The first case was filed against him in the year 1999. The detenue claims to be 40 years now. Therefore, in the year 1999 he would have been around 16 years. Even though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all of them are petty offences, we are of the considered view that the number of cases registered against him constituted the ground for a subjective satisfaction as far as the respondents are concerned. That the grounds of detention would clearly indicate that there were even orders of externment that were passed against him. In spite of the same, there has not been any improvement. It is submitted in the reply that the detenue has some kind of a physical hold over the area in which he resides. That he threatens the people and gets his work done by mere

Signature Not Verified physical force. Therefore, in spite of issuing various warnings he has not Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 8/7/2023 11:01:30 AM

improved himself. That he continues to be a menace to the society as well as to the public order. The contention of the petitioner that in most of the cases he has been acquitted, is disputed by the Government Advocate. He contends that acquittal has taken place because all the witnesses have turned hostile as a result of the threat being meted out by the detenue. Therefore, none of them are cases of the honourable acquittals.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi Vs. State of Manipur and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 618 with reference to paragraph 38. The same would read as follows :-

"Before parting with the case, we wish to add that in a criminal case, if it is initiated against the detenu, the prosecution would not be in a position to procure evidence to sustain conviction cannot be a ground to pass an order of preventive detention under the National Security Act. Therefore, we cannot agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the State of Manipur."

Therefore, we are of the view that the same would not be applicable to the case on hand. This is not the case where no evidence has been collected for the 76 cases registered against him. The preventive detention has been passed not because of absence of evidence in the FIR lodged against the detenue but only because serious public law and order situation would be created if he is not kept under preventive detention. Therefore, the said judgment would not be applicable to the petitioner. Since no other grounds have been urged, we do not find any ground to quash the impugned orders of detention.

Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 8/7/2023 11:01:30 AM

(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Sha

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHALINI LANDGE Signing time: 8/7/2023 11:01:30 AM