1. Charansingh, father of the detenu Rinkusingh by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the correctness, validity and propriety of the Order No. 5/NSA/99 dated 17-8-99 passed by respondent No. 3-District Magistrate, Katni and the intimation dated 18-8-99 sent by the Station House Officer, Police Station Madhavnagar, whereunder petitioner's son Rinkusingh has been directed to be detained and kept in Central Jail, Jabalpur under Section 3, sub-section (2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

2. According to the petitioner his son Rinkusingh (hereinafter referred as detenu) is a peace loving citizen and is not involved in criminal activities nor is menace to the public safety, public order and tranquillity, therefore, his detention under the orders impugned is bad, illegal, contrary to the provisions of law and deserves to be quashed.

3. From the original records and the pleadings of the parties in the writ petition is appears that on 16-8-99 the Superintendent of Police made a report to the District Magistrate, Katni. The said report was in respect of the illegal acts and criminal activities of the detenu. It was submitted to the District Magistrate that the detenu was a hardened criminal and it was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of the public order, therefore, a preventive order under the National Security Act, 1980 was necessary to be taken. The said report, was supported by certain details of the records of the Police Station, Madhavnagar, Katni. The said report was also accompanied with the F.I.R., copies of Sanhas and other material. A list of witnesses was also submitted by the Superintendent of Police before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate after receiving the complaint registered the same and examined the Town Inspector of Police Station, Madhavnagar. After recording his satisfaction that with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to make an order directing his detention, the District Magistrate passed an order under Section 3 sub-section 2 and sub-section 3 of the National Security Act. The District Magistrate passed an order under the powers conferred upon him by the State Government. The order was sent by the District Magistrate to the State Government for its approval. The State Government approved the order passed by the District Magistrate on 27-8-99. In accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the National Security Act, the State Government submitted the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board constituted by it under Section 9, the grounds on which the order was made and the representation for consideration, the Advisory Board after considering the material placed before it and taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, after hearing the detenu submitted its report to the appropriate Government that the order passed by the District Magistrate and approved by the State Government were valid and in accordance with law. The Advisory Board in its report dated 5-10-99 submitted that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, therefore, his detention was justified. The Advisory Board also opined that there were sufficient grounds for detention of Rinkusingh son of Charansingh under National Security Act. After receiving the report of the Advisory Board the Slate Government by its order dated 21-10-99, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1 of Section 12 of the National Security Act confirmed the detention order and directed that period of detention of said Rinkusingh shall continue till expiry of 12 months from the date of his detention i.e., upto 17-8-2000.

4. The order passed by the District Magistrate, approved and confirmed by the State Government under Section 3 and Section 12 of the National Security Act has been challenged by the petitioner on number of the grounds. According to the petitioner the grounds of detention as furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Katni to the District Magistrate, Katni were insufficient to provide a foundation for detaining the detenu under National Security Act. It is also submitted that the order passed by the District Magistrate shows non-application of mind and the order is a mechanical one. It is also submitted that the petitioner's representation was not properly considered and present was not a case of public order but was in fact a case of law and order, therefore, ordinary preventive provisions and provisions contained under the Indian Penal Code are sufficient to deal with the offence and as such detenu was not required to be detained. It is also contended that the grounds as detailed in Annexure A-3, the report of the Superintendent of Police and in order dated 17-8-99 of the District Magistrate, Katni are absolutely insufficient and do not provide any proper reason for directing detention of the detenu. It is, further contended that the grounds on which the detention order has been passed are flimsy and as some of the-grounds are based on Rojnamcha Sanha, the order passed by the District Magistrate is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 i. e., the State of Madhya Pradesh, District Magistrate, Katni and Superintendent of Police, Katni have filed their return. According to them no representations was made by the petitioner nor the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 ever received any representation. According to them the representation submitted alongwith the petition is a concocted document. They further submitted that Annexure A-5 does not bear any date nor does it appear that it was sent to any authority. They have further submitted that on one side the petitioner was submitting that he had sent the representation through his counsel while Annexures A-4 and A-5 were not sent through any counsel. They have submitted that the grounds projected by the Superintendent of Police were legal and the order passed by the District Magistrate is in accordance with law.

5. The District Magistrate, Katni has submitted his own affidavit inter alia contending that he had received the report from the Superintendent of Police, after registration of the case he examined the Town Inspector of Police Station, Madhavnagar and after examining the entire documentary and oral evidence and after recording his satisfaction he had passed the order of detention. According to him the order was communicated by him to the State Government and State had approved the order on 27-8-99. According to him the case of the detenu was placed before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board vide its order dated 5-10-99 approved the detention and thereafter vide order dated 21-10-99 the State Government confirmed the order of detention.

6. Before referring to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties it would be necessary to refer to the report of Superintendent of Police, Katni. After giving the summary of the conduct and the activities of the detenu, the Superintendent of Police has referred to certain acts of the detenu. The ground No. 1 refers to an offence dated 5-5-98. According to the report the detenu and his associates in furtherance of their common intention intimidating one Vikas Vishwakarma, abused him and also threatened him that he would be murdered. Ground No, 2 refers to an incident dated 9-6-99. According to the report at about 2.30 in the night the detenu Rinkusingh tried to out-raged the modesty of one Sushila Devi when she was sleeping outside her house with her sister-in-law. Ground No. 3 refers to an incident dated 7-6-99. The first informant, a young girl Rekha Patel informed the Police that on 7-6-99 when she was sleeping in her house the accused out-raged her modesty and extended the intimidation that if any report was lodged by her she would be done to death. The girl out of fear lodged the report after two days. Ground No. 4 refers to an incident dated 11-6-99 when Asst. Sub-Inspector Girish Khare arrested the accused for commission of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Ground No. 5 refers to a telephonic intimation received at Police Station on 30-7-99. According to the information the detenu was teasing the young girls and on being asked to conduct properly he was threatening the people. Sub-Inspector Khadesia after receiving the information proceeded to the spot for verification of the information, on arrival he found that the market was closed. There was a situation of lawlessness, near the Girls School the detenu was standing and was throwing the challenge that he would kidnap the girls and if anybody lodges the report he would be murdered. The accused was immediately arrested and was brought to the police station. The ground No. 6 refers to arrest of the detenu under Section 151, Cr.P.C. and filing of a challan under Section 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ground No. 7 is an offshoot of the ground No. 5. When the Sub-Inspector B.L. Khadesia arrested the accused, he found that the accused was armed with a knife and find that the accused had committed an offence under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, a challan was filed before the Competent Court. Ground No. 8 again refers to lodgement of a complaint against the detenu under Section 110of Cr.P.C. in the Court of S.D.O. Ground No. 9 is a sanha report recorded by Satyawrat Pandey, the Station House Officer that on 5-8-99 he was informed by the public that detenu Rinkusingh was regularly teasing the girls, the women and the girls because of fear of the detenu and the intimidation extended by him were unable to lodge the report, he was taking free provisions from the shopkeepers, was demanding money and if the same amount was not paid, he was intimidating the shopkeepers.

7. It is necessary to note that five challans have already been filed against the petitioner and a preventive action under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code was also taken against him.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds on which the detention is sought and the ground on which the order is passed by the District Magistrate directing detention of the detenu are insufficient for passing an order under Section 3 of sub-section 2/3 of the National Security Act. On the other hand Shri Ajay Raizada, learned counsel for the State submits that the acts of the detenu are not simple offence creating law and order situation but are affecting the public peace and tranquillity. According to him the petitioner has created a situation of maintenance of public order, therefore, and as there was sufficient material before the detaining authority to record its satisfaction the order passed by the detaining authority docs not call for any interference.

9. Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Act provides that the State Government if is satisfied it may by order in writing direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (2), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section. Undisputedly, in the present case, the District Magistrate has been authorised to pass an order under sub-section 2. Sub-section 2 of Section 3 provides that if the authority is satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to 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. The present is a case where the District Magistrate has taken the action against the detenu so that by his detention he may be prevented from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

10. Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner placing his strong reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Virendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. (1997 Cr. LJ 446) submitted that as the grounds are not duly supported by the relevant documents, therefore, and as reliance is sought to be placed by the authority on the crime register the order passed by the detaining authority deserves to be quashed. According to him as some of the ground relied upon relate to preventive and prohibitory proceedings taken against the detenu under Code of Criminal Procedure, the said grounds would not provide sufficient foundation for passing the detention order. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the said case is no authority to hold that in a case where the detenu is facing number of the criminal cases then to the detention order deserves to be quashed.

11. In the matter of Virendra Singh (supra) as many as 16 grounds were projected. The case mostly were to Section 506 Part-II of IPC read with Sections 323, 324 or so. The detenu was arrested for offence punishable under Sections 307, 302 of IPC etc. This Court observed that the ground Nos. 1 to 18 were not duly supported by relevant documents because the documents furnished to the detaining authority were only entries from the crime register, the Court opined that submission of the entries from the crime register would not suffice to substantiate and disclose even prima facie that the allegations against the detenu were true. In the present case we have gone through the original records. Alongwith the reports of the Superintendent of Police, copies of the FIR were also submitted before the detaining authority. Present is not a case where the detaining authority has recorded its satisfaction only after going through the entries made in the crime register. Present is a case where sufficient material was placed before the authority. After giving our anxious consideration to the arguments and after going through the original records we are unable to hold that the grounds relied upon by the authority relate only to preventive and prohibitory proceedings taken against the detenu under the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the report two preventive and prohibitory proceedings were registered against the detenu. The learned District Magistrate did not pass its order only on the fact that the preventive and prohibitory proceedings were taken against the detenu. In fact in his order he has referred to the incident dated 5-5-98, 7-6-99, 9-6-99, 11-6-99 and 30-7-99. He has also passed his order after taking into consideration the statement of the Station House Officer and after taking into consideration the other material available in the file. The District Magistrate has further recorded that the detenu has become a dare devil and is a habitual criminal who was teasing the girls openly and was exploiting the shopkeepers and was extorting money from them. We are unable to hold that the order passed by the District Magistrate can be interfered with on the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The endeavour of the Court is to see whether an act relates to law and order or to public order. The distinction depends upon the effect of the act on the life of the community or in other words the reach and effect and potentiality of the act if so put as to disturb or dislocate the even tempo of the life of the community and, if that is so it would be a case of affecting the public order. The High Court has to take into consideration as to whether a case submitted before the District Magistrate was a case relating to law and order situation or was affecting the maintenance of the public order. Every illegal act or commission of the crime in fact relates to maintenance of law and order but if that wide definition is generally accepted then every wrong doer who is otherwise required to be detained would always submit before the Court that as under the common law he can be dealt with, the provisions of the National Security Act would not be applicable. The authority has to see whether the case relating to law and order in fact affects the public order or not. A man if commits an offence every day is arrested and is produced before the Court of Law and is released then he may certainly come and say that as the common law was handling the situation, proceedings under the National Security Act are not required to be taken. But the law would not accept such an argument because continuous engagement of a man in the crime and the manner in which the crimes are being committed would certainly persuade the competent authority to take action rather a preventive action rather to prevent the man from affecting the public order. The effect of engagement of a man in commission of crime and leading a crime life would certainly affect the even tempo of the life of the community. If number of the persons are afraid of a man, they are unable to come to the police for lodging the reports, when they are unable to come to the Courts for giving their statement or out of sheer fear they turn hostile or are unable to speak the truth then in such cases the authority has to take in consideration that such a man whether requires to be detained under the provisions of the National Security Act.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed his reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in W.P. 2335/95, Hamid Ali Vs. State of M.P. and others, decided on 24-11-95. In the said case this Court observed on the facts that the grounds raised in support of the detention were not sufficient for passing an order of detention. Then a matter like present, comes before the detaining authority of the Court, it is required to be seen whether the acts of the detenu were relating to breach of law and order or were effecting the maintenance of public order. There is a subtle and settled distinction between 'Law and Order' and 'Public Order'. Whether a particular person by his acts is committing breach of law and order or is acting in a manner affecting the maintenance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. In a given case number of the breaches may not affect the public order but at the same time even a single act may disturb the public order. Whenever an offence is committed it contravenes the law and effects the order but if it affects the community or public at large then such single act in itself would be sufficient to affect the maintenance of the public order. It would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a case as to whether the act or acts of the person concerned were affecting law and order or were affecting the maintenance of public order. If the nature of the act and the place where it is committed has the effect on the public at large then certainly such an act would be described as an act affecting the maintenance of the public order.

13. In Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh Vs. MM. Mehta [(1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 237], the Supreme Court has summed up the distinction between the 'Law and Order' and 'Public Order' as under:--

"In this connection it may be stated that in order to bring the activities of a person within the expression of "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order", the fall out and the extent and reach of the alleged activities must be of such a nature that they travel beyond the capacity of the ordinary law to deal with him or to prevent his subversive activities affecting the community at large or a large section of society. It is the degree of disturbance and its impact upon the even tempo of life of the society or the people of a locality which determines whether the disturbance caused by such activity amounts only to a breach of "law and order" or it amounts to "public order". If the activity falls within the category of disturbance of "public order" then it becomes essential to treat such a criminal and deal with him differently than an ordinary criminal under the law as his activities would fall beyond the frontiers of law and order, disturbing the even tempo of life of the community of the specified locality."

14. In the present case some of the acts of the detenu are affecting law and order. Act like committing offences against single person would certainly disturb the law and order but if such a man in quick succession commits number of the offences try to out-rage the modesty of the woman, teases the girl and woman, try to extort money from public at large and because of his dare devil image affects public peace and tranquillity then by no stretch of imagination or extending any concession in favour of the detenu it can be held to be affecting the law and order situation. The ground No. 5 clearly shows that after receiving the information when the Sub-Inspector went to the scene of occurrence he found that the market was closed, the public at large was at unrest and the detenu was extending the public challenging that he would kidnap the girl of his choice and if report was lodged he would kill the man. This act alone, if is taken in its true perspective, would show that it was affecting the even tempo of the life of the community.

15. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the acts of the petitioner were not such which were affecting the even tempo of public and community nor were affecting the maintenance of the public order cannot be accepted.

16. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the material available in the petition and in the original records and taking into consideration to the provisions of law, we are unable to hold that the District Magistrate was unjustified in passing the order of detention.

17. The petition deserves to an is accordingly dismissed.

18. Writ Petition dismissed.