Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOGESH KUMAR JAT versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GHAZIABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jogesh Kumar Jat v. District Magistrate, Ghaziabad & Others - HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 20450 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 387 (20 October 2003)

 

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.32

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.20450 of 2003

Jogesh Kumar Jat vs. The District Magistrate,

Ghaziabad & others

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble R.S. Tripathi, J.

This petition is directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad dated 31.1.2003 detaining the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and are on record.

We have heard Shri Amit Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mahendra Pratap and Shri Arvind Tripathi, learned Government Advocates appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri J. Lal, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.4.

It appears from the grounds of detention that on a tip from the police informer the Station Officer, Kavinagar, Ghaziabad conducted raid in Ramleela Ground on 30.12.2002 at 9.15 am where the petitioner along with other 6-7 criminals were found sitting beneath a tree.  On seeing the police they tried to flee away from the scene but failed and thus, he along with five other persons were apprehended. However, one of the associates Pramod Kumar Gupta managed to escape from the scene. On search being made, country made firearms with ammunitions, dagger and counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/- & Rs.50/- denominations were recovered from their possession. It appears that from the possession of the petitioner four fake currency notes of Rs. 50/- denominations having same number, i.e., SGK 555555 besides a country made pistol of 32 bore and live cartridges were recovered. Similarly fake currency notes of Rs. 100/- and 50/- denominations having same number were recovered from the possession of the associates of the petitioner who were apprehended along with him.  They were accordingly brought to the police station where an FIR was drawn and registered against them as case crime nos.1022 of 2002 to 1027 of 2002, under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C & 489-D IPC and  Section 25 of the Arms Act, P.S. Kavinagar, District Ghaziabad.The petitioner and his associates stated before the Station Officer that they are involved in the preparation of fake currency notes. They also disclosed the name of Pramod Kumar Gupta who managed to escape from the scene, and stated that fake currency notes are being made in House No. 66-A Sector 9, Vijai Nagar, Ghaziabad. In view of the above disclosure, a raid was conducted in the aforesaid house where Pramod Kumar Gupta was not found but his wife Premlata was in the house and at the time of raid she was busy in the preparation of fake currency notes on a computer. The police recovered one computer, printer, fax, scanner, copier, toner, paper cutting machine, scissor, and other equipments, which are alleged to have been used in the process of manufacturing fake currency notes along with fake currency notes of Rs. 94,750/-.  The Station Officer thereafter through Senior Superintendent of Police vide letter dated 30.1.2003 sent proposal to the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad for detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, who thereafter having considered the entire material placed before him was satisfied that the activity of the petitioner is prejudicial to the maintenance of supply and service essential to the community, passed the impugned order of detention.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the confessional statement of the petitioner and his associates, referred to in the grounds of detention, was not supplied to the petitioner on account of which he could not make effective representation before the concerned authority.  He further referred to last para of page 5 of the grounds of detention wherein it has been mentioned that on 30.12.2002 during interrogation the petitioner and his associates confessed their guilt before Vijay Prakash, Station Officer, Kavinagar, Ghaziabad and also about the involvement of Pramod Kumar Gupta, who managed to escape from the scene.  He drew our attention to the statement made in paras 26,27 & 30 of the writ petition wherein it has been averred that the petitioner has not been supplied copies of the confessional statement, which amounts to denial of valuable right of making an effective representation to the concerned authority but the same has not been denied in the counter-affidavit by the respondents and, therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner is vitiated.  He relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Court in the cases of Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya vs. Union of India and others, 1981 SCC (Crl) 471, Kailash Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, 1984 SCC (Crl) 265, Nandagopal Saha vs. Union of India, 1988 SCC (Crl) 107, State of U.P. vs. Kamal Kishore Saini, 1988 SCC (Crl) 107 and Ashok Kumar vs. State of U.P. & others, 2001 (43) ACC 337 and submitted that since, in the case in hand, the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner and his associates having not been supplied to the petitioner along with grounds of detention the continued detention of the petitioner is vitiated and on this count alone this petition deserves to be allowed.  

We do not find any force in this submission for the reason that in page 5 of the grounds of detention, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, it has been averred as under: -

"fnukad 30-12-2002 dks gh Fkkuk?;D{k dfouxj fot;uxj fot; izdk'k }kjk vki o vkids lkfFk;ksa ls iwNrkN dh x;h rks vki o vkids lkfFk;ksa us vius tqeZ dk bdcky djrs gq, crk;k fd vkidk lkFkh izeksn dqekj tks ekSds ls Hkkx x;k FkkA"

The documents, which were enclosed in the grounds of detention are also mentioned in page 14 at serial no.7, which refers entry no.18 time 12.10 dated 30.12.2002 at P.S. Kavinagar, Ghaziabad.  The original record, which has been produced by the learned AGA, shows that copy of the aforesaid G.D. No.18 was furnished to the petitioner along with grounds of detention, a perusal of which shows that during the time of interrogation at Police Station, Kavinagar, Ghaziabad the petitioner and his associates admitted that they are indulging in the manufacturing of fake currency notes along with one of their associates Pramod Kumar Gupta, who managed to escape from the scene and owns house no.66-A, Sector 9, Vijaynagar, Ghaziabad and the said activities are being carried out in that house. They also stated in their statement that the fake currency notes and equipments used for that purpose can be recovered from that house if search is conducted immediately. Copy of the above statement referred to in the grounds of detention, was supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. Therefore, the contention that since that fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit, it is deemed to be admitted, is misconceived and cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the original record has been produced before us, a perusal whereof shows that the alleged admission by the petitioner, referred to at page 5 of the grounds of detention, was enclosed therein at serial no.7, which was admittedly supplied to the petitioner, therefore, even in the absence of denial it will have no impact on the merit of the case.

The second submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that there were no material before the District Magistrate to show that the petitioner on being released on bail shall again indulge in the activity, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of supply and service essential to the community and as such satisfaction recorded in the order is without there being any basis.  This fact has also no force.  A perusal of grounds of detention shows that there was enough material before the District Magistrate and having considered them he was satisfied that the activity of the petitioner is prejudicial to the maintenance of supply and service essential to the community.  It has further been mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is making efforts for being released on bail and there is every possibility of his application being allowed. Therefore, the District Magistrate while passing the order of detention was aware and satisfied on the materials before him that efforts were being made on behalf of the petitioner for being released on bail and there was every possibility of his being released on bail. It is then contended that the detaining authority has mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner is a man of criminal antecedent, although there was no such material before him to show his involvement in any other criminal case, and thus, the order is based on extraneous consideration. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vashishtha Narain Karwaria Vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 1990 SCC (Crl.) 372.

In our view, this point has also no merit nor the aforesaid judgment is applicable in the facts of the present case. In the case of Vashishtha Narain Karwaria Vs. State of U.P. & others (Supra), the contention on behalf of the petitioner was that the sponsoring authority had placed certain irrelevant and extraneous matters before the detaining authority which could have influenced the mind of the detaining authority and stealthily crept into the decision of the said authority directing detention and, therefore, the order impugned was liable to be quashed. It appears from the facts of that case as stated in the judgment that the Station House Officer, P.S. Colonelganj, district Allahabad vide his letter dated 31.3.1989 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, had alleged that that detenu/accused is a hardened criminal and has a gang in which his son Kapil and two other big offenders Ram Chandra Tripathi and Santosh Kumar Tripathi, son of Gaya Prasad are included; that they often use to commit heinous crimes by which terror and fear prevails in the people and many crimes are registered against Vashishtha Narain Karwaria in other police stations. However, details of those cases and crime numbers were not mentioned in that letter and, therefore, the Apex Court was of the view that the averments in that letter are extraneous, touching the character of the detenu, though not referred in the grounds of detention, may have influenced the mind of the detaining authority to some extent one way or the other in reaching to the subjective satisfaction to take a decision of directing detention of the detenu and, therefore, it was held that the order has suffered from the vice of consideration of extraneous material vitiating the validity of the order.

In the instant case, the Station House Officer in his letter dated 30.1.2003 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, a copy whereof is enclosed with the grounds of detention, has only mentioned that the petitioner is a man of criminal tendency (',d vijkf|d izo`fr dk O;fDr agS'), and he along with his associates are engaged in the manufacturing of fake currency notes which had adverse impact on the economy of the country. No other material than those referred in the grounds of detention was placed before the detaining authority and, therefore, it cannot be held that the impugned order of detention is based on any extraneous material.

Lastly, it is contended that similar allegations were made against 7 persons and only 5 out of them including the petitioner have been detained, but no reason is spelt out for not passing the order of detention in respect of them. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2002 (45) ACC 738.

We do not find force in the submissions. It is settled legal position that in the matter of preventive detention the order cannot be assailed on the basis of parity and on that ground release from preventive detention cannot be allowed. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Chandresh Paswan Vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 1999 ALJ 1167 held that the order of preventive detention cannot be challenged on the ground of parity and all decisions of this Court taking contrary view must and shall stand overruled. Similar view was expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Katare Vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2001 Cr.L.J. 4777. Reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajesh Vs. State of U.P. (Supra), is misplaced for the reason that though this point was raised in the writ petition but the order of detention was quashed primarily on the ground that there was no sufficient material to show that there has been disturbance of public order and, therefore, that judgment is of no help to the petitioner. It has rightly been pointed out by the learned AGA that one of the accused Premlata is a lady and the other co-accused Pramod Kumar Gupta and Satish Kumar are absconding and, therefore, no proposal in respect of their detention was sent to the detaining authority and as such there was no occasion to pass the order of detention in respect of them along with the petitioner.

In the instant case the petitioner along with his associates are alleged to be involved in the racket of manufacturing fake currency notes which is certainly, in our view, prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and is an offence against the society as a whole. From the grounds of detention it appears that on the statement of the petitioner huge quantity of fake currency notes, equipments and machines etc. used for that purpose were recovered. The alleged activities of the petitioner are bound to destabilize the economy of the country and cause great incursion on the economic planning of the country and thus, we are of the considered view that the order of detention is fully justified and it does not call for any interference under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

20.10.2003

A


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.