JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - The petitioner, who has been detained under the provisions of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) has filed this Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which he has challenged the order dated 18-10-84 passed by the District Magistrate. Varanasi under S. 3(3) of the grounds, inter alia, that the relevant material having an important bearing on the question of detention was not placed before the District Magistrate with the result that the subjective satisfaction, the formation of which was necessary before passing the detention order, was vitiated. Since this ground alone, in our opinion, is sufficient to dispose of the petition finally, we need not mention the other grounds which have been urged before us. 2. The order of detention, as stated earlier, was passed by the District Magistrate. Varanasi on 18-10-84. The order is contained in Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition. The grounds of detention read as under : " fnukad 18-9-84 dks vkius vius vU; 4 lkfFk;ksa ds lkFk edku uEcj lh21@99,&1 egke.My uxj Fkkuk psr xat okjk.klh esa jkr yxHkx 9&30 cts ?kql x;s vkSj fjokyoj rFkk fiLrkSy ls xksfy;ka pykrs gq;s Jh QkStnkj feJ vkSj veksyd feJ dks ekSds ij gh ekj MkykA vki vkSj vkids lkfFk;ksa us Jh vfHkys'k feJ dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls xksfy;ka pykdj ?kk;y dj fn;kA ftls ?kk;ykoLFkk esa vLirky esa nkf[ky fd;k x;kA egke.My uxj Fkkuk psr xat] okjk.klh vR;Ur gh ?kuh vkcknh okyk bykdk gS tgka ij jkr 12 cts rd cgqr gh pgy igy jgrh gSA vki vkSj vkids lkfFk;ksa }kjk bl izdkj ,d O;fDr ds ?kj esa ?kqldj Qk;j djds tku ls ekjus ls iwjs cktkj vkSj okjk.klh uxj esa O;kIr ruko] vkrad vkSj Hk; O;kIr gks x;k gS ftlls yksd O;oLFkk ds vuqj{k.k ij izfrdwy izHkko iM+kA vkids }kjk bl izdkj fd;s x;s vijk/k ds fy;s vkids fo:) vijk/k la[;k 314@84 vUrxZr /kkjk 148@149@307@302 Hkk0n0fo0 Fkkuk psr xat dk;e fd;k x;k gSA vkids }kjk bl izdkj [kqys vke ?kuh vkcknh okys bykdk esa nks O;fDr;ksa dks dRy djus ls vki turk esa vkrad vkSj Hk; O;kIr gks x;k gSA fnukad 19-9-84 dks ygqjkohj dh lHkh nqdkus cUn jgh vkSj mlh fnu Hkkjh tulewg us e`rdksa dh yk'k ysdj Fkkuk psr xat ij izn'kZu rFkk ?ksjko fd;k x;kA tulewg esa bruk vkrad vkSj jks"k O;kir FkkA " 3. The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime Case No. 314/84 registered under Ss. 302/307/148/149 I.P.C. at P. S. Chetganj, District Varanasi on the basis of the First Information Report lodged on 18-9-84 by Akhilesh Misra. It is said that on 18-9-84 at about 9-9-30 P.M. Madan Singh, Narendra Singh (Petitioner) both armed with revolvers, Munna Singh, Sardar Gurcharan Singh and Anand Singh armed with pistols came to the informant s House No. C-21/9A-1 in Mahamandal Nagar, Varanasi and shot at his father Shri Faujdar Misra and one Amolak Singh who fell on the ground. Akhilesh Misra (informant) was also shot at and injured. The incident is said to have been witnessed, amongst others, by Smt. Kameshwari Devi, informants mother. This report was lodged at 22.55 P.M. on 18-9-84 at police station Chetganj, a furlong away from the place of occurrence. 4. There are a number of G. D. Reports on the record which may be considered at this stage. 5. G. D. entry No. 38 made on 19-9-84 at 15-30 hours shows that the dead bodies of Faujdar Misra and Amolak Singh were sent for post-mortem examination. The crime, the report further shows, had created tension in the mohalla as also in the city. The incident, the report says, it had created terror with the result that the shops were immediately closed and they remained closed even on the next day (i.e. 19-9-84) The noon show in the Prakash Talkies was also not held. 6. G. D. entry No. 41 made on 19-9-84 at 10.20 P.M. contains a warning that the dead bodies of Faujdar Misra and Amolak Singh are intended to be brought to the police station by the public which would hold a demonstration and make a demand for adequate arrangements. for their security and safety. 7. The G. D. Report No. 46 made on 19-9-84 at 18.30 hours indicates that the dead bodies of Faujdar Misra and Amolak Singh were brought to the police station by a mob of a thousand persons who held a demonstration and demanded the arrest of the accused. 8. At 22-30 hours on 20-9-84 another report was made in the G.D. at SI. No. 49 (Annexure- A-8) which indicates that the incident had caused a feeling of insecurity amongst the general public as it result of which the shops were not opened. The flow of traffic was also affected. 8. At 22-30 hours on 20-9-84 another report was made in the G.D. at SI. No. 49 (Annexure- A-8) which indicates that the incident had caused a feeling of insecurity amongst the general public as it result of which the shops were not opened. The flow of traffic was also affected. The public which had brought the dead bodies of Faujdar Misra and Amolak Singh at the police station had made a demand for protection and security. An assurance in that regard was given to them by the Circle Officer and the Superintendent of Police. 9. The incident was also reported in the Daily Aaj a newspaper published from Varanasi. The news item prompted S. 1. Sri B.N. Singh Baghel to investigate the matter. He made a report in the G.D. on 23-9-84 at S.I. No. 55 at 21-35 P.M. that the incident reported in the press was correct. It was also mentioned by him that crime No. 314/84 under Ss. 148/149/307/302 I.P.C. has since been registered. It was also stated that the incident had taken place late in the evening on 18-9-84 at Mahantandal Nagar which was quite close to the main Lahura Bir Crossing. The incident had created panic amongst the public and the people had run away from the place. Within minutes the whole of the Bazar as also the entire mohalla was enveloped by complete silence. The degree of fear that the incident had generated was reflected in the conduct of the cinegoers who immediately after the cinema show of the Prakash Talkies, started running away in all directions with the result that the law and order situation was disturbed. The people lost courage to come out of their houses and on account of fear and tension, they did not open their shops on 19th and 20th Sep. 4. Even the noon show of Prakash Talkies was not held on 19-9-64 as nobody had come to see the cinema show. It was further stated in the report that the persons belonging to the petitioner's party had tried to abduct the student leader, Ram Iqbal Singh, from the Benaras Hindu University Hostel. This had disturbed the law and order situation in the BHU and the students and the proctorial staff had demanded police protection. The tension, according to the report. was still prevalent. 10. This had disturbed the law and order situation in the BHU and the students and the proctorial staff had demanded police protection. The tension, according to the report. was still prevalent. 10. It was on the basis of the above reports that the claim of the petitioner that the incident in question related to "law and order" and not "public order" was disputed by the opposite parties who maintained that because the incident in question had created a feeling of general insecurity among the public who had not been able to open their shops even on the next day of the incident and the cinema show was also not held, the incident related to the question of "public order" and, therefore, the District Magistrate was fully justified in passing the impugned order in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner which was prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order." But, as stated earlier, since the petition can be disposed of on another point, we need not consider this question. 11. It may be stated that after the incident in question the petitioner had surrendered and was lodged in jail. He was already in jail when the order of detention was passed on 18-10-84. 12. Under S. 3 of the National Security Act a detention can be passed either by the Central Government or by the State Government. The power can also be exercised by the District Magistrate under sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 if he is so authorised by the State Government. In either case the detaining authority has first to be satisfied that the detention of the person was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in a manner which was prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order." Usually the machinery under the Act is set in motion by the Superintendent of Police by making a report to the District Magistrate about the prejudicial activities of the person sought to be detained. This report has to be accompanied by all the relevant material and documents. It is not open to the reporting officer to withhold any relevant document from the scrutiny of the District Magistrate who, on being satisfied, has to pass the order of detention. 13. The order passed by the District Magistrate under sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Act is to be approved by the State Government under sub-sec. (4). It is not open to the reporting officer to withhold any relevant document from the scrutiny of the District Magistrate who, on being satisfied, has to pass the order of detention. 13. The order passed by the District Magistrate under sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Act is to be approved by the State Government under sub-sec. (4). The detaining authority is required to forthwith report the matter to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter. In S. K. Nizamuddin v. State of W.B., AIR 1974 SC 2353 the detention order was quashed on the ground that a relevant fact was not considered by the District Magistrate at the time of the passing of the impugned order. The order of detention in that case was passed on the solitary incident of theft of Aluminium wire alleged to have been committed by the petitioner on April 14, 1973. A criminal case was filed against the petitioner in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Asansol, but the case was ultimately dropped as the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence. The petitioner was discharged. The fact that the prosecution was dropped and the petitioner was discharged was not brought to the notice of the District Magistrate. It was, therefore, observed that circumstances might quite possibly have an impact on the decision of the detaining authority, whether or not to make the order of detention. This decision has been followed in Ashadevi v. K. Shivraj, AIR 1979 SC 447 in which it was laid down that subjective satisfaction requisite on the part of the detaining authority, the formation of which is a condition precedent to the passing of the detention order will get vitiated if material or vital facts which would have a bearing on the issue and would influence the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other are ignored or not considered by the detaining authority before issuing the detention order. It may be pointed out that in that case the detention order was passed on a confessional statement which had been later retracted but the fact of retraction of confessional statement was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority and the order of detention was, therefore, quashed. 14. It may be pointed out that in that case the detention order was passed on a confessional statement which had been later retracted but the fact of retraction of confessional statement was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority and the order of detention was, therefore, quashed. 14. A Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. 1983 All LJ 693 had the occasion to consider this question and relying upon the Supreme Court decision in Asha Devi 's case (supra) held that the detention order was liable to be set aside, as the relevant documents i.e. affidavits of the eye-witnesses disowning to have witnessed the incident and further asserting that the accused were not the assailants, were not placed before the District Magistrate and not considered by him. 15. The question came up again for the consideration of this Court in Nanha v. Supdt. District Jail, Kanpur, 1984 All LJ 898 in which it was laid down that the validity of an order for preventive detention passed by the detaining authority can, inter alia, be questioned on the ground that the same has been passed without consideration of material circumstances which, in the circumstances of the case, ought to have been placed before the detaining authority and considered by it. In that case the detenu who was prosecuted for offence under Ss. 399/402 and 400 I.P.C. had been acquitted but the fact of acquittal was not brought to the notice of the District Magistrate at the time of passing of the detention order. 16. In Kailash Chand Goyal v. State, 1984 Cri LJ 1039 a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the detention order and laid down that the subjective satisfaction requisite on the part of the detaining authority gets vitiated if material or vital facts which would have a bearing on the issue and would or could, influence the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other are ignored or not considered by it before issuing the detention order. The same effect is another decision of the Delhi High Court in Shri Ram Goyal v. Union of India 1984 Cri LJ 1048. 17. The same effect is another decision of the Delhi High Court in Shri Ram Goyal v. Union of India 1984 Cri LJ 1048. 17. On a conspectus of the decisions referred to above, it is clear that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority should be based on a consideration of all the relevant material and if any relevant material which can influence its decision is ignored and not taken into consideration or is not placed before the detaining authority, the order would be vitiated. 18. Let us now proceed to examine the facts of the present case to find out whether on the ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order in the instant case is vitiated. 19. The incident in question had taken place on 18-9-84. The investigation of the case was immediately taken up by the police. It is stated that the police had recorded the statement of Akhilesh Misra, the first informant, under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. during the course of the investigation. Akhilesh Misra is an eye-witness of the incident in question. He had sustained gun shot injuries and it was he who had lodged the F.I.R. which is contained in Annexure A-4 to the counter-affidavit. A copy of the statement of Akhilesh Misra recorded under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. is Annexure 6 to the rejoinder affidavit. 20. Madan Singh, Narendra Singh (petitioner) Sardar Gurcharan Singh, Anand Singh and Munna Singh are the persons who are named as accused in the F. I. R. in which it is stated that these persons had started firing suddenly. The F.I.R. does not contain all the details of the incident which, however, have been stated in the statement of Akhilesh Misra recorded under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. The F.I.R. does not specify the roles of each of the accused but in the statement made under S. 161 of the Cr. The F.I.R. does not contain all the details of the incident which, however, have been stated in the statement of Akhilesh Misra recorded under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. The F.I.R. does not specify the roles of each of the accused but in the statement made under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. it has been stated : (i) Sabhi Muljiman mere kamre men aa gaye; (ii) Aur aate hi lalkar kar Sabse pahale Ashok Kumar Urf Munna Singh ne goli mara, (iii) Main munh men goli lagte hi jhatka khaya, (iv) Itne men mere pitaji jo takhat par baithe the uth bhi nahin paye, unko bhi Ashok Singh urf Munna Singh ne goli mara, (v) Gurcharan Singh Dua ne Kamre men ghus kar andhadhundh pistaul se ham sab par goliyan Chalana Shuru kiya, (vi) Jis-se doosri goli mere hridaya men lagi wa Amolak Singh ko bhi goli lagi, (vii) goli lagne par mere pita wa Amolak Singh murchit hokar gir gage, (viii) Bakiya muljiman Madan Singh, Anand Singh Munna Singh bhi aate hi goli chalane lage the. 21. The statement under S. 61 of the Cr. P.C. does not assign any role to the petitioner. He is not said to have fired at any one. 22. The statement also mentions the motive of the crime in the following words : " Ghatna ke din main wa mere pita Faujdar Misra sham ko apne ghar par kamre men baithe the ki Narendra Singh, Narendra Hotel was Madan Singh, Modern Lodge aaj mere ghar par aaye our mere pitaji se kahne lage ki apne larke ko mana kar do isne aaj hamare naukar ko jab wo unki larki ke saath ja raha tha to mara tha. Is par maine kaha ki maine nahin mara. Is par Madan Singh ne dhamkaya to mere pita Jhalla kar kahne lage ki jab dekho tab mere hi larka, aapko Shikayat Karne ko milta hai. Iske baad wo log chale gaye." It is stated in the end of the statement as under : "Madan Singh Muljim Modern Lodge men main bivi bachchon ke rahte hain. Inki larki jawan hai our shadi ke yogya hai. Inki Larkiyan aksar naukaron ke saath bahar ghoomne wa kharidari karne jaya karti hain........... 23. Smt. Kameshwari Devi is the widow of Faujdar Misra, who was killed in the incident in question. Inki larki jawan hai our shadi ke yogya hai. Inki Larkiyan aksar naukaron ke saath bahar ghoomne wa kharidari karne jaya karti hain........... 23. Smt. Kameshwari Devi is the widow of Faujdar Misra, who was killed in the incident in question. She is the mother of Akhilesh Misra who was injured and had lodged the F.I.R. Her statement was also recorded under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. A copy of this statement has been filed as Annexure A-11 to the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, Varanasi. She had not seen the whole of the incident and had reached at the spot when the accused has been leaving the house. She does not, therefore, give the details of the incident. 24. A perusal of the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, Varanasi indicates that the documents contained in Annexures A-1 to A-11 were taken into consideration by the detaining authority. These documents have also been specified in para 3 of the counter- affidavit. A copy of the statement of Smt. Kameshwari Devi recorded under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. is mentioned at Sl. No. 11. The list of documents does not contain a copy of the statement of Akhilesh Misra recorded under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. It is not disputed that this document i.e. Akhilesh Misra s statement under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. was not placed before the District Magistrate, Varanasi and consequently it was not taken into consideration, by him while passing the impugned order of detention under S. 3(3) of the National Security Act. 25. As pointed out earlier, the First Information Report was lodged by Akhilesh Misra. It does not contain the details of the incident which have been specified in his statement under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. in which all possible details including the details with regard to the specific role played by each of the accused have been given. Narendra Singh (petitioner) is not assigned any role except that he came armed with rest of the accused. 26. The statement of Akhilesh Misra, recorded under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. was an extremely material document, as it contains the details of the motive, details of the incident and the manner in which the incident had taken place. Narendra Singh (petitioner) is not assigned any role except that he came armed with rest of the accused. 26. The statement of Akhilesh Misra, recorded under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. was an extremely material document, as it contains the details of the motive, details of the incident and the manner in which the incident had taken place. It also contains the details of the role played by each of the accused including the details as to the person who had fired at Faujdar Misra and Amolak Singh and the persons who had fired at Akhilesh Misra. 27. The statement does not significantly assign any role to the petitioner, who is merely said to have come to the house of Faujdar Misra with other accused persons. It is the silence with respect to petitioner's role coupled with other details and circumstances which makes the statement a very relevant material. 28. The incident in question is the basis of Narendra Singh's detention under the Act. The details of the incident, as stated above, are contained in the statement of Akhilesh Misra recorded under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. It was, therefore, necessary to bring this statement to the notice of the District Magistrate so that the time of consideration of other material, the details of the incident as contained in the said statement were also considered. This is irrespective of the legal position that a passive participant in a crime which has the effect of disturbing the public order can also be detained under the Act. 29. It is not understandable why the Reporting Officer had not included the statement of Akhilesh Misra recorded under S. 161 of the Cr. P.C. in the documents which were submitted to the District Magistrate, Varanasi, Particularly when the statement of his mother Smt. Kameshwari Devi which, as observed earlier, does not give the details of the incident, was placed before the District Magistrate, The document, in our opinion, was extremely material and should have been placed before the detaining authority so that it could have applied its mind to all the relevant circumstances. 30. 30. We may clarify that the relevancy of this document has been considered by us in respect of the petitioner and we should not be understood to say that this document was relevant in the case of all other co-accused who, we are informed, have also been detained under the Act. 31. In view of our finding that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that relevant material was not placed before the detaining authority and was not considered by it, we need not consider the other question raised in this petition. 32. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 18-10-84 passed under S. 3(3) of the Act, which is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless his detention is required in some other case. There will be no order as to costs. 33. Immediately after we had dictated the judgment, learned Additional Government Advocate made a prayer for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In deciding the question raised in the petition we have followed the principles already enunciated by the Supreme Court in its various decisions which have been referred to by us in the judgment. The case, in our opinion, does not involve any question of general importance to be decided by the Supreme Court. The leave prayed for is, therefore, refused.