Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM PRATAP SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Pratap Singh v. Union Of India & Others - HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 9819 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13508 (3 August 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36

                    Crl. Misc. Writ Petition no. 9819 of  2007

Ram  Pratap Singh . . . .  . . ..  .  . . .  . .   . . . . . . . .  .  Petitioner.

                                 Versus

Union of India  and others  .. . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .  . . .  Respondents.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

        ----

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

    ( Delivered by Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.)

This is a writ petition  challenging  the detention order dated 25.9.2006 passed against the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980 ( the Act).

The facts relevant for disposal of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 12.8.2006 at police station New Agra  district Agra by Ashok Kumar Agrawal  under sections  463, 464, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and on the basis of this report  case crime no. 509 of 2006 was registered at  the above police station. It was alleged  in that report that the petitioner Ram Pratap Singh had taken on  rent two rooms in upper portion of his house no. 47 Girraj Nagar, Lawyers Colony police station New Agra district Agra and the rent was   Rs.3000/- per month. In these  rooms  he  kept  answer-books  of  the students of M.B.A., B.C.A., B.B.A. and Computer course conducted by the technical colleges affiliated with Choudhary Charan Singh University Meerut and those answer-books  were got evaluated by ineligible examiners who were students of  High School, Intermediate and B.A. and marks of the examinees were increased after taking money from them. Co-accused Sri Pali Baijnath Hari, Nitesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Gajendra Pratap, Ajit Kumar and 8 - 10 other boys were also co-operating in commission of these offences.

In pursuance of this report  the above house was raided  by the police party on 13.8.2006 and at that time it was found that Ram Pratap Singh was  evaluating the answer books along with co-accused persons. The answer-books of B.C.A., B.B.A., B.P.T., B.A. LL.B., Clinic Paihology, Biochemistry, Oriental Programming-C  and B.B.M.S. etc. were lying there. A total number of  9931 answer-books  were recovered  in 50 bundles. Thereafter on 14.8.2006  on receiving information from an informer, S.H.O. of police station New Agra   arrested Ram Gopal and Satya Prakash and upon  inquiry they told that on the instructions of Sri Babu Lal Arya, Registrar of Meerut University, who is father of accused Ram Pratap Singh ( petitioner in this petition ) they had come to  dispose of the aforesaid answer books and that those answer books had been sent  to the petitioner by his father  Sri Babu Lal Arya, Registrar of the  said university. On search 1283 bundles  of answer books containing 45,791 answer-books  were recovered from  the residence  of Sri Babu Lal Arya and ten bundles containing 605  answer-books were also recovered  from the car  standing in Portico. Thereafter  the accused were challaned for the above offences and  the criminal case against them is going on.

The District Magistrate, Agra  passed an order  against  aforesaid Ram Pratap Singh under section 3(2) of the National Security Act on 25.9.2006. Aggrieved with that order the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

We have  counsel for the petitioner and the  A.G.A for the respondents.

Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act under which the above order of detention has been passed  runs as under:

"(2) The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to  do, make an order directing that such person be detained.

Explanation:  For the purposes of this sub-section, "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services  essential to the community" does not include "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community" as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ( 7 of 1980 ) , and accordingly, no order of detention shall be made under this Act on any ground on which an order of detention may be made under that Act."

It is to be seen that under the aforesaid sub section State Government has  passed an order for detention of  the petitioner  on the ground  of maintenance of public order. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner by getting the answer books evaluated by incompetent persons  created any problem to the maintenance of public order.  The acts  allegedly committed  by him were illegal acts and they could be termed to be  prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order  but his above act  had no direct relationship with the maintenance of public order.  A person can be detained  under the National Security Act  when his acts  are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Since the acts of the petitioner  cannot be termed to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he could not be detained  under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, though he is liable to be proceeded with under the law  of the land  for the offences allegedly committed by him. Anyhow since his detention  under the National Security Act is illegal, he is entitled to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained in any other case.

The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.

The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner's detention under the National Security Act is quashed and he shall be set  at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained  in any other case.

Dated:3.8.2007

SKS/RPP.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.