Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Sharad Verma
  • for the Petitioner AND A.S. Raizada for the Respondents
Judges
  • R.S Garg
  • S.P Khare, JJ.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Sharad Verma
  • for the Petitioner AND A.S. Raizada for the Respondents
Judges
  • R.S Garg
  • S.P Khare, JJ.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Charansingh, father of the detenu Rinkusingh, filed a petition under Article 226 challenging:

  • Order No. 5/NSA/99 dated 17-8-1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Katni directing detention of Rinkusingh under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (NSA); and
  • Intimation dated 18-8-1999 by the Station House Officer, Madhavnagar, communicating detention and custody in Central Jail, Jabalpur.

Procedural chronology (as recorded in the opinion):

  • 16-8-1999: Superintendent of Police submitted a report to the District Magistrate alleging illegal acts and criminal activities by Rinkusingh and recommended preventive detention under the NSA. The report included F.I.R. copies, Sanhas, other material and a list of witnesses.
  • 17-8-1999: District Magistrate, after registering the complaint and examining the Town Inspector, recorded satisfaction and passed an order under Section 3(2) and (3) of the NSA directing detention.
  • 18-8-1999: Intimation of detention was sent by the Station House Officer.
  • 27-8-1999: State Government approved the District Magistrate's order; the matter was placed before the Advisory Board under Section 9 in terms of Section 10.
  • 5-10-1999: Advisory Board reported that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to maintenance of public order and that there were sufficient grounds for detention under the NSA.
  • 21-10-1999: State Government, exercising powers under Section 12(1) of the NSA, confirmed the detention order and directed detention to continue up to 17-8-2000 (12 months from initial detention).

The Superintendent of Police's report (summarised in the opinion) alleged multiple incidents between 5-5-1998 and 5-8-1999, including threats to murder, attempts to outrage modesty, outraging modesty with intimidation of a young girl, arrest under Section 25 of the Arms Act, telephonic reports of teasing and threats to girls, arrest under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C., and allegations of extortion and intimidation of shopkeepers. Five challans had already been filed against the detenu and preventive action under the Code of Criminal Procedure had been taken.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the detention of Rinkusingh under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 was legally valid, proper and supported by sufficient grounds and material.
  2. Whether the acts attributed to the detenu amounted to affecting the "maintenance of public order" (thus justifying preventive detention under the NSA) or were limited to a "law and order" situation addressable by ordinary criminal proceedings.
  3. Whether the grounds of detention were duly supported by relevant documents (for example, whether reliance solely on crime register entries is sufficient), and whether the detaining authority applied its mind or acted mechanically.
  4. Whether the petitioner's representation was considered by the detaining authority and whether procedural irregularities (such as alleged deficiencies in supporting documents) invalidated the detention order.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner asserted that his son Rinkusingh is a peace-loving citizen not involved in criminal activities and not a menace to public safety, public order or tranquillity, and therefore detention was bad and illegal.
  • The grounds furnished by the Superintendent of Police were said to be insufficient to justify detention under the NSA; the District Magistrate's order showed non-application of mind and was alleged to be mechanical.
  • It was contended that the matter was essentially one of law and order and could be dealt with under ordinary criminal law and preventive provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, making NSA detention unnecessary.
  • The petitioner argued that the grounds (including Annexure A/3, the police report and the District Magistrate's order) were absolutely insufficient, some being based on Rojnamcha Sanha, and thus the detention order was per se illegal.
  • It was also contended that the representation submitted by or on behalf of the detenu was not properly considered by the authorities.

Respondents' / State's Arguments

  • Respondents (State, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police) contended no representation was received from the petitioner and alleged the representation produced with the petition was a concocted document; Annexure A/5 was submitted to be undated and not sent to any authority.
  • They submitted the grounds placed before the District Magistrate were legally sufficient and that the District Magistrate's order was in accordance with law.
  • The District Magistrate stated that after receiving the Superintendent of Police's report he examined the Town Inspector, considered documentary and oral evidence, recorded satisfaction and passed the detention order; the procedural approvals (State approval, Advisory Board report, State confirmation) were followed.
  • Counsel for the State argued that the acts of the detenu went beyond simple law-and-order offences and were affecting public peace and tranquillity, and that sufficient material existed before the detaining authority to record satisfaction for preventive detention under the NSA.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Veerendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1997 Cri LJ 446 (Division Bench) Holds that where grounds are not duly supported by relevant documents and detaining authority relies only on entries from the crime register, such entries do not suffice to substantiate even prima facie allegations for detention. The court distinguished Veerendra Singh on the facts: unlike that case, original records and copies of F.I.Rs were submitted before the detaining authority here; the detaining authority did not rely solely on crime register entries, and thus Veerendra Singh did not mandate quashing of the present detention order.
Hamid Ali v. State of M.P. & Ors., W.P. 2335/95 (decided 24-11-1995) Reiterates the necessity to distinguish between 'law and order' and 'public order' when assessing sufficiency of grounds for detention; where grounds are insufficient detention should be quashed. Cited for the settled distinction and the requirement to assess whether acts affect public order or merely law and order. The court applied the test and concluded the present facts indicated an effect on public order rather than merely law and order.
Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta, (1995) 3 SCC 237 Explains the distinction: activities amounting to prejudice to public order are those whose fallout, extent and reach go beyond the capacity of ordinary law to deal with, affecting the even tempo of life of the community or a large section of society. The court relied on this authoritative articulation to evaluate whether the detenu's conduct affected public order. Applying the degree-and-impact test from this precedent, the court concluded the detenu's repeated acts had potential to disturb the even tempo of community life and therefore justified detention under the NSA.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded in discernible steps anchored to statutory provisions and precedent:

  1. Statutory framework: The court noted the statutory scheme — Section 3(2) (powers to detain where authority is satisfied it is necessary to prevent a person from acting prejudicially to the security of the State or maintenance of public order), Section 3(3) (authorisation by State Government to empower District Magistrate), the Advisory Board procedure under Sections 9, 10 and confirmation under Section 12. The court accepted that procedural steps (police report, District Magistrate's order, State approval, Advisory Board report and State confirmation) had been followed in the present case.
  2. On sufficiency and support of grounds: The court addressed the petitioner's contention that the grounds were insufficient and akin to reliance on crime register entries (relying on Veerendra Singh). After examination of the original records, the court found that along with the Superintendent of Police's report, copies of F.I.R.s and other material were placed before the detaining authority. Thus, unlike in Veerendra Singh, the detaining authority did not rely solely on crime register entries and received sufficient documentary material.
  3. Distinguishing law-and-order from public-order: The court examined the nature, frequency and impact of the alleged acts. It relied on the principle that distinction depends on the "degree and effect" of the acts upon the life of the community — specifically whether the acts have reach and effect potent enough to disturb or dislocate the even tempo of community life. The court cited Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh's articulation of this test and reiterated the discussion in Hamid Ali about the subtle distinction.
  4. Application to facts: Evaluating the reported incidents (threats to murder, attempts to outrage the modesty of women on multiple dates, arrests under the Arms Act, reports of teasing/harassment and public intimidation, extortion from shopkeepers, a market found closed due to unrest and direct public challenging that he would kidnap or kill), the court concluded that some acts went beyond isolated law-and-order offences. The report of market closure and public fear supported a finding that the detenu's conduct affected public peace and tranquillity and the "even tempo of the life of the community."
  5. On non-application of mind and representations: The court considered the claim that the District Magistrate's order was mechanical. It found that the District Magistrate had examined the Town Inspector, recorded satisfaction after considering documentary and oral material, and referred specifically to several incidents in his order. The court was unable to hold that the District Magistrate had not applied his mind.
  6. Final evaluative conclusion: After “anxious consideration” and review of original records, the court was satisfied there was sufficient material for the detaining authority to record satisfaction under Section 3(2) of the NSA and that the case was not one warranting interference on the grounds urged by the petitioner.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is dismissed. The court upheld the detention order passed by the District Magistrate on 17-8-1999, the approval by the State Government, and the confirmation after the Advisory Board's report.

Implications:

  • Direct effect: The detention of Rinkusingh under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act was validated by the court; the petition to quash the detention order was rejected and the detention stood confirmed for the period specified by the State Government.
  • On precedent and legal principle: The court applied established tests distinguishing 'law and order' from 'public order' (as articulated in Mustakmiya and discussed in Hamid Ali) and distinguished the Veerendra Singh authority on the factual ground that sufficient documentary material (including F.I.R.s) was placed before the detaining authority in this case. The opinion does not assert that it creates a new legal principle; it applies existing precedent to the facts at hand.

Note: This summary is strictly confined to the matter and materials contained in the provided opinion and does not add factual or legal information beyond what the opinion itself presents.

Show full summary ...

    Charan Singh v. Union Of India And Others

    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 17-8-1999 passed by respondent No. 3-District Magistrate, Katni and the intimation dated 18-8-1999 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 it appears that on 16-8-1999 the Suptd. 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 Suptd. 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 27-8-1999. 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 5-10-1999 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 State Government by its order dated 21-10-1999, 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. up to 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 Suptd. 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 offences and as such the detenu was not required to be detained. It is also contended that the grounds as detailed in Annexure A/3, the report of the Suptd. Of Police and in order dated 17-8-1999 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 respondents Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. the State of Madhya Pradesh, District Magistrate, Katni and Suptd. of Police, Katni have filed their return. According to them no representation was made by the petitioner nor the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 ever received any representation. According to them the representation submitted along with 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 Suptd. 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 Suptd. of Police, after registration of the case he examined the Town Inspector of Police Station Madavnagar 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 27-8-1999. According to him the case of the detenu was placed before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board vide its order dated 5-10-1999 approved the detention and thereafter vide order dated 21-10-1999 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 Suptd. of Police Katni. After giving the summary of the conduct and the activities of the detenu, the Suptd. of Police has referred to certain acts of the detenu. The ground No. 1 refers to an offence dated 5-5-1998. 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 9-6-1999. According to the report at about 2.30 in the night the detenu Rinkusingh tried to outrage 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 7-6-1999. The first informant, a young girl Rekha Patel informed the Police that on 7-6-1999 when she was sleeping in her house the accused outraged 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 11-6-1999 when Asstt. 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 30-7-1999. 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 Sections 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, finding 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 110 of 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 5-8-1999 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 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 grounds 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 offences 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 does 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 subsection. 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 Veerendra Singh v. State of M.P. 1997 Cri 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 Veerendra Singh (1997 Cri LJ 446) (Madh Pra) (supra) as many as 16 grounds were projected. The cases mostly were of Section 506, Part II of I.P.C. read with Sections 323, 324 or so. The detenu was arrested for offence punishable under Sections 307, 302 of I.P.C. etc. This Court observed that the Grounds Nos. 1 to 12 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. Along with the reports of the Suptd. of Police, copies of the F.I.R. 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 5-5-1998, 7-6-1999, 9-6-1999, 11-6-1999 and 30-7-1999. 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 daredevil 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 wrongdoer 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 a 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, 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 v. State of M.P. and Ors. decided on 24-11-1995. In the said case this court observed on the facts that the grounds raised in support of the detention were not sufficient for passing a order of detention. When a matter like present comes before the Detaining Authority or the Court, it is required to be seen whether the acts of the detenu were relating to breach of law and order or were affecting 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 breach 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 affects 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 than certainly such an act would be described as an act affecting the maintenance of the public order.

    13. In Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta (1995) 3 SCC 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 outrage the modesty of the woman, teases the girl and woman, try to extort money from public at large and because of his daredevil 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 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 and is accordingly dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Charan Singh v. Union Of India And Others
    (May 4, 2000)