KAMLESHWAR NATH, J. Both these writ petitions are taken up to be decided together as they raise common questions of fact and law. 2. Bhola Nath Bajpai, son of Babu Ram Bajpai, resident of Amar Nagar Police Station Biswan has filed this W. P. No. 4582 of 86 through his father Shri Babu Ram Baipai challenging the validity of his preventive detention under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980. His brother Madhusudan Bajpai has also challenged his preventive detention under the said Act in W. P. No. 4592 of 86. The order of detention in both the cases was passed by the District Magis trate, Sitapur, on 19-4-1986, Annexure 1 of both these writ petitions. Bhola Nath Bajpai was arrested and was lent to District Jail, Sitapur, on 31-5- 86 and order of detention dated 19-4-86 along with grounds of detention was served on him on the same day, Madhusudhan Bajpai surrendered on 2-6-86 and he was sent to District Jail and was served with the order of detention dated 19-4-86 along with grounds of detention on the same day. 3. The order of detention is based o three occurrences involving both the petitioners. The first is alleged to have taken place on 19-11-85 at 7a. m. and first information report of this occurrence was lodged by Ram Lal son of Baldeo Prasad, resident of Amar Nagar, Biswan Town, and the case registered at the Police Station Biswan in Crime No. 255 of 85, under Sees. 174, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Cede. The victim of the occurrence was Ambika Prasad son of the complainant. It was alleged in the first information report that complainants son Ambika Prasad had come to the house of Brij Nath son of Mahabir Prasad, for playing cards on Diwali day as Diwali Shagun and that Yogendra son of Balram Awasthi of the mohalla was also playing cards and that in the course of playing cards some dispute arose between Ambika Prasad and Yogendra. Ambika Prasad slapped Yogendra where upon Yogendra left the place holding out threat to take revenge. Ambika Prasad slapped Yogendra where upon Yogendra left the place holding out threat to take revenge. The allegation further is that on 19-11-85 at about 7 a. m. the coroplaintant and his sons Jumuna Prasad, Ambika Prasad, Ganga Ram are his Samdhi, Shyam Lal, resident of village Kamhara Wazirpur, Police Station Talgaon, District Sitapur were sitting at the door- step of the complainants house and were taking amongst themselves when Yogendra carrying gun and his sons Akhilesh and Laxmi Narain carrying lathis came along with their friend Babu Ram Bajpai and his son Madhusudan Bajpai and Bhola Nath Bajpai, Madhusudan Bajpai was carrying gun while Bhola Nath Bajpai had country made pistol and as soon as they came they challenged saying that they have to take revenge and simultaneously Madhusudan fired at Jamuna Prasad who fell down and succumbed to his injuries while Akhilesh gave lathi injuries to Ganga Ram while Laxmi Narain gave lathi injuries to Ambika Prasad and both the injured to persons fell down Thereupon the petitioners and other accused left towards east. This occurrence created an atmosphere of fear and terror amongst the residents of the mohalla who closed the doors of their houses and went inside. In the grounds of detention it is mentioned that during the course of investigation it was found that the residents of the mohalla fear- stricken and no one was having the courage to give evidence against the petitioners and be cause of this day time occurrence the residents of the area were feeling terrified insecure. 4. The second occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 31-12-85. Report of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Biswan by Sub-Inspec tor of Police Shri B. D. Singh alleging that through special police informer infor mation was received that petitioners Bhola Nath Bajpai and Madhusudan Bajpai were armed with unlicensed weapons and were proceeding towards main Chauraha of Amar Nagar to extract money from persons there. On receiving this informa tion complainant B. D. Singh, along with police official of the police station went towards the said Chauraha and had reached near the house of Nihal by the side of the pucca road. 5. On receiving this informa tion complainant B. D. Singh, along with police official of the police station went towards the said Chauraha and had reached near the house of Nihal by the side of the pucca road. 5. It was found that Madhusudan Bajpai was having gun while Bhola Nath was carrying revolver and when an effort was made to apprehened the two petitioners they started firing at the police party but some how police party succeeded in arresting Bhola Nath and took in possession his 38 bore revolver while Madhusudan Bajpai managed to escape holding out a challenge to the police party that if any one proceeded further he would be shot dead. This occurrence created panic amongst those living and standing in the area and a confusion was created making those persons run hither and thither and the entire atmosphere was surcharged with panic, fear and terror. Bhola Nath petitioner could not produce licence for the revolver and recovery memo was prepared on the spot. On basis of this report a case under Sections 25/27, Anns Act was re gistered against Bhola Nath. In the grounds of detention it is alleged that during the course of investigation it was found that the residents of the area were fear striken to the extent that no one was prepared to give evidence against the petitioners. 6. The third occurrence is of dated 13-4-86 at 10 a. m. Oral report of this occurrence was lodged by Shakoor son of Phulla Khan, resident of Ramabhari police station Biswan against both the petitioners, under Sections 352/534 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that as usual the complainant had come to the main Chauraha of Biswan to sell milk, the two petitioners came and asked for one kilogram of milk. The complainant demanded Rs. 4 as price of milk, whereupon both petitioners said that they would pay only Rs. 2 for one kilogram of milk. The complainant refused to sell milk to the petitioners. Both of them held out their revolvers at the complainant asking that he did not know them and that the entire town was under their influence and thumb and yielding to whatever they desired and how the complainant could dare to stand against them. 2 for one kilogram of milk. The complainant refused to sell milk to the petitioners. Both of them held out their revolvers at the complainant asking that he did not know them and that the entire town was under their influence and thumb and yielding to whatever they desired and how the complainant could dare to stand against them. They then threatened to kill the complainant who out of fear left his cycle and ran away and the incident disturbed the normal avocation of life. This created an atmosphere of fear and terror amongst the shopkeepers around the Chauraha and they started closing their shops. It was alleged that had the complainant not run away he would have been physically hurt. Since this cccurrence related to a non-cogniznnce offence no formal investigation was done by the police. However, according to the allegation, S. I Shri Ram Nagina Singh of the police station orally interrogated the complainant and in the course of spot inquiry he could gather that this occurrence created fear and terror amongst the residents of the area and they had even closed their shops under fear and apprehension from the petitioners. Some of the occupants of the shops, namely, Bhajan Singh, Santosh and other were unable to carry on their normal business because of the fear of the petitioners. It is alleged that it was also learnt that the petitioners used to extort money from the residents on occasions. It was mentioned that police was posted to restore confidence in the area and the shopkeepers were persuaded to open their shops. A report about the enquiry and action taken was made at the police station by Shri Ram Nagina Singh, Sub-Inspector. 7. On the basis of the above three occurrences the detaining authority recorded a subjective satisfaction in the detention order contained in Annexure I that it was necessary to detain the petitioners in order to preserve the mainte nance of public order. 8. The order of detention dated 19-4-86 was approved by the State Government on 28-4-86. Report under Section 3 (5) of the Act was sent to the Government of India on 30-4-86. It was received in Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on 3-5-86. 8. The order of detention dated 19-4-86 was approved by the State Government on 28-4-86. Report under Section 3 (5) of the Act was sent to the Government of India on 30-4-86. It was received in Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on 3-5-86. Representation of the petitioners dated 19-6- 86 was said to have been received in the Home Department, U. P. Govern ment on 21-6-86 along with the comments of the District Magistrate, Sitapur, 22-6-86 was Sunday. On 23-6-87 the representations were received in the Con fidential Section of Home Department, U. P. Government, and on the same day it was sent to the Advisory Board because of meeting of the Advisory Board to deal with the cases of the petitioners and some other detenus was fixed 25th, 26th and 27th June, 1986 at Nainital. The case of the petitioners was heard by the Advisory Board on 27-6-1986 and the record was returned to Government endorsing that further hearing of the petitioners case shall take place on 10-7-1986. The record of the petitioners case along with representation is said to have been received back in the Government on 30-6-1986 and upon consideration the representation was rejected by the State Government on 5-7-1986 and intimation about rejection of the representation was sent to District Magis trate through radiogram message dated 8-7-1986. Upon receipt of the report of the Advisory Board dated 19-7-1986 the matter was considered and after obtain ing higher orders the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government under Section 12 (1) of the Act on 28-7-1986 and intimation about the confirma tion of the detention order was sent through radiogram message dated 29-7-1986. 9. As mentioned above, the report of this detention was received in Government of India, Ministry of Home Afflairs, on 3-5-1986. The report is said to have been duly examined and it was decided on 7-5- 1986 that no inter ference in the order of detention was called for. 10. The detention of both the petitioner has been challenged by the learn ed Counsel for the petitioners on more than one ground The first ground being that the incidents relied upon for the detention are not related to public order but only to law and order. 10. The detention of both the petitioner has been challenged by the learn ed Counsel for the petitioners on more than one ground The first ground being that the incidents relied upon for the detention are not related to public order but only to law and order. It is also argued that the third ground should have been excluded from consideration as there was no material before the detaining authority in support of this ground. We shall deal with this ground first. 11. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the impact of the three incidents relied upon in the order of detention was not confined to a few persons individually but its affect was much wider covering the residents of the entire small town of Biswan and as such it was a case of public order and not merely of law and order. 12. It is well settled proposition of law that every infraction of law must necessarily affect order but an act affecting law and order may not necessarily also affect the public order. The expression law and order" is not genus totally different from "public order". The true distinction between the areas of "public order" and "law and order" lies not merely in the nature of quality of the act, but up to the degree and extent of its reach upon the society. The act similar in nature but committed in different context and circumstances might cause different results. In one set of given circumstance the act may affect an individual member of the society only. Similar act committed in a different background may have its ramification on the society as a whole or at least a section of the society. In the former case, the act forming subject-matter of detention may be placed within realm of "law and order". In the later case a similar act may fall within the ambit of the expression "public order". Accordingly, what has to be taken into consideration are the circumstances or the background in the context of which the act is done. 13. The three rounds require to be examined in the light of this well settled proposition of law. 14. The three incidents on which the detention order is based have to be considered in the context of the relevant setting. It is the conceded position that his wan is a small town. 13. The three rounds require to be examined in the light of this well settled proposition of law. 14. The three incidents on which the detention order is based have to be considered in the context of the relevant setting. It is the conceded position that his wan is a small town. The three occurrences took place within a span of only five months, between November, 1985 and April, 1986. The first occur rence is a day time murder when within the sight of so many persons the two petitioners came prepared with firearms, along with others and challenged the victim and Madhusudan Bajpai shot down the victim. It is true that the target of the attack was the individual, nevertheless when such a crime is committed in a small mohalla of a town in day time in the sight of the residents of the mohalla, it is bound to create panic and awe amongst the entire mohalla. Feeling of shock and insecurity would envelope there and understandably they would shirk and hesitate to depose against the petitioners who were the residents of the same mohalla. Such occurrence can reasonably be said to affect the tempo of the life of the mohalla and its impact on the people of the locality. 15. The three incidents when taken together could provide a reasonable basis for the detention order. In any case, the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority cannot be rejected as having been based on no material or on irrelevant or vague material. Further, the grounds of detention when taken together, in our view, are relatable to public order and having potentiality of disturbing public order. 16. In formulating this view we draw support from the following decision of the Supreme Court/allahabad High Court. 17. In Milan Banik v. The State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1974 SC 1214 , two incidents formed the basis of detention. In the first incident the petitioner along with his associates stopped rickshaw of the victim on points of dagger while he was coming from the railway station and snatched Rs. 20 and other valuables and escaped. According to the allegation commission of this highway robbery creates panic amongst the local people and thereby disturbed normal avocation of life in the area. 20 and other valuables and escaped. According to the allegation commission of this highway robbery creates panic amongst the local people and thereby disturbed normal avocation of life in the area. In the second incident the petitioner of that case and his associates attacked a Bus Conductor and on the point of an open Bhujali robbed him of Rs. 20 and one wrist watch and other valuables forced him to keep silent. Both these acts terrorised the local people and created a sense of panic in their minds and as a result flow of life in the area said to have been highly disturbed. These two incidents were held by their Lord ships of the Supreme Court to affect public order. 18. The facts of the case of Cora v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 473 , are like this. There was only one incident forming basis of subjective satis faction of the detaining authority. The detenu and his associates were armed with lethal weapons including firearms, they raided the house of the victim and looted away cash and ornaments etc. At the time of operation the detenu fired from his firearm in utter disregard to human life and their safety. The victim and his neigh bour sustained grievous gun shot injuries to which they eventually succumbed Some of the inmates of the house were also brutally assaulted. It was alleged that this action created panic in the locality and the local people felt a sense of insecurity. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the decision in Arm Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC i 22, but on the facts of the case recorded that: "it is obvious that the act alleged against the petitioner was calculated to disturb the current life of the community in the village. It was as serious act of dacoity which was alleged against the petitioner and it was perpetrated at dead of night and the petitioner and his asso ciates who participated were armed with lethal weapons including gun and they used these lethal weapons recklessly and indiscriminately in utter disregard of human life and actually cause grievous injuries to at least two persons and beat up several others. This act of dacoity created a panic in the locality and seriously disturbed the even tempo of life of the community in the village. This act of dacoity created a panic in the locality and seriously disturbed the even tempo of life of the community in the village. There was clearly disturbance of public order and the act alleged against the petitioner had nexus with the object of maintenance of public order. The subjective satisfaction reached by the District Magistrate could not, therefore, be said to be based on an irrelevant ground. " 19. In Sushil Kumar v State of U. P. , 1982 All Crl Cases Vol 19 page 24, the order of detention was based on four grounds. The first was that the detenu was notorious, dangerous person and a man of criminal tendencies. It was alleged that the public of Allahabad is terror stricken as a result of the activities of detenu. As a result of the terror caused by the detenu nobody dares to give evidence against him and at the same time people fear to make a report against him. It was alleged that with the help of his companions and arms the detenu creates tension and realises by force money from people. The detenu takes Goon-das to Meerganj inhabited by prostitutes and forcibly realises money from the prostitutes and other people. It was alleged that from a confidential report it was learnt that he was a man of this nature. The remaining three grounds, gave specific incidents of the general allegations contained in the first ground. The Honble Judges came to the conclusion that the material against the detenu was sufficient to form subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It was observed that : "this court does not function as an appellate authority and is not called upon to decide correctness of the allegations made against the petitioner. " It was also observed that : "the deteriorating law and order situation which exists in these days is a matter of which judicial notice can be taken by the Court. Therefore, when a person is alleged to be in the company of those who were armed with bombs, revolvers and knives and attack passers-by on a public street, it can scarcely be said that the action concerns only the individual who is actually attack and that it has no effect on the residents of the locality where the incident occurs. " 20. " 20. In Shiv Shanker v. Incharge Police Station, Hasanganj, Lucknow,1986 ALJ 132, the detention order was based on the three incidents. The first involved firing by the detenu on the police party. It was alleged that the police patty was on patrol duty when it received information through an informant that a person was carrrying on illicit arms with him. The police parry interrogated the petitioner with the help of the witnesses from the locality and was able to arrest the petitioner who fired the police party although the fire missed and could not cause injury to the police personnel. The detenu was found to be in possession of country made pistol and two line cartridges. The second incident also involved firing at the victim who had appeared as a witness against the companions of the detenu. In the third incident the detenu and his companions entered the house of the victim and attacked the victim resulting in injuries. On an alarm being raised people of the locality came running and thereafter the detenu and the other left the place firing from their pistols. The Honble Judges considered the decision in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and others, AIR 1982 SC 1143 and Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1982 SC 8 and in the facts of the case held that three incidents related to a period with in about 14 months. They are of the same nature and in at least two of them the petitioner and his companion resorted to firing in public place. It was held that the grounds are relatable to public order and are germane and that the detention order does not suffer from any illegality. 21. In a recent case the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 488 of 1986-Suresh Jaiswal v. State of U. P. , decided on 22-8-1986 reliance was placed on Shiv Shanker v. Incharge Police Station Hasangunj, Lucknow (supra) and Kali Charan v. State of U. P. , 1985 All 1151. Two incidents were involved in this case. In the first incident Shiv Shanker was standing near the office of Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow at about 2. 45 p. m. along with two others. The detenu along with others came there on jeep and started tiring from revolver which they were carrying. A pellet struck back side of R. R. Singh on head. In the first incident Shiv Shanker was standing near the office of Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow at about 2. 45 p. m. along with two others. The detenu along with others came there on jeep and started tiring from revolver which they were carrying. A pellet struck back side of R. R. Singh on head. It was alleged that as a result of the fire people ran helter skelter. The second occurrence was a night occurrence. It was alleged that the police personnel were on patrol duty when at 12 in night they were informed that certain miscreants would collect in the field of D. A. V. College with a view to commit dacoity in a particular house. The police personnel waited for the arrival of the miscreants. When they arrived the police party challenged them but one of the miscreants fired two shots towards police party. From the police side also shots were fired and the police party rushed towards miscreants and succeeded in apprehending detenu Suresh and others. Firearms and cartridges were recovered. It was held that the attack on the police party while they were discharging their normal duties has the potentiality of disturbing public order although in the particular attack itself public order may have been actually disturbed. It was also observed that it is immaterial whether the attack takes place at day time or at night in a busy locality or at any lonely place in the locality. 22. Reliance was also placed for this view on the decision of their Lord ships of the Supreme Court (it was a three Judges decision) in Shyam Lal Chakravarti v. Commissioner of Police Calcutta and others, AIR 1970 SC 270, and also on Fahim Ahmad v. Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, Allahabad and others, 1985 ALJ 1204. 23. Ajai Dixits case which had been cited on behalf of the petitioner was considred but it was observed that the authority of this decision is in conflict with the proposition of law laid down by a larger Bench in Shyam Lal Chakra vartya case. Another decision relied upon from the side of the petitioner was Bundu v. State of U. P. and others, 1985 ALJ 514. That was also not taken to help with the observation that decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shyam Lal Chakravartys case was not considered while deciding Bundus case. 24. Another decision relied upon from the side of the petitioner was Bundu v. State of U. P. and others, 1985 ALJ 514. That was also not taken to help with the observation that decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shyam Lal Chakravartys case was not considered while deciding Bundus case. 24. Besides Ajay Dixits case petitioners learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Arun Ghose v. State of West Bengnl, 1970 SCC (Gil; 67. It has been mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this decision is of still large bench consisting of four Honble Judges and the proposition of law laid down in this case should govern the matter in preference to three Judges decision in Shyam Lal Chakra-vartys case. Perusal of the Judgment in Arun Ghoshs case would indicate that all the acts forming basis of detention was acts of molestation directed against a particular family and were not directed against woman in general from the loca lity. It was observed that the assaults also were on individuals and that the conduct may be reprehensible but it does not add up to the situation where it may be said that the community at large was being disturbed or in other words there was a breach of public order or likelihood of a breach of public order. The following observations in general nature laying down the proposition of law settl ed in this case may also be usefully be referred to :- "an act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from another but in its potentiality it may be very different. Take the case of assault on girls. A guest at a hotel may kisss or make advances to half a dozen chamber maids. He may annoy them and also the management but he does not cause disturbance of public order. He may even have a traces with the friends of one of the girls but even then it would be a case of breach of law and order only. Take another case of a man who molests women in lonely places. As a result of his activities girls going to colleges and schools are in constant danger and fear. Women going for their ordinary business are afraid of being way laid and assault ed. Take another case of a man who molests women in lonely places. As a result of his activities girls going to colleges and schools are in constant danger and fear. Women going for their ordinary business are afraid of being way laid and assault ed. The activity of this man in its essential quality is not different from the act of the other man but in its potentiality and in its effect upon the public tranquility there is a vast difference. The act of the man who molests the girls in lonely places causes a disturbance in the even tempo of living which is the first requirement of public order. He disturbs the society and the community 25. Accordingly, the decision in the case of Arun Ghoshs case does not help the petitioners. It v as not a case of police firing and as we have already analysed that the grounds forming basis for detention of the petitioners affected the residents of the area and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the same carried the potentiality and effect on the public order cannot be said to be unreasonable or unwarranted. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioners has next argued that the im pugned order of detention was passed by the detaining authority without due application of mind. Attention, has, in this connection been drawn to the grounds of detention, in particular, last paragraph of page 5 and first paragraph at page 6 of die grounds of detention, Annexure-2 (pages 14 and 15) of the paper book of the W. P. No. 4582 of 1986, wherein it was mentioned that the peti tioner had been released (Riha) by the Court of Sessions Judge is reported by the Station Officer of Police Station Biswan while as regards Crime No, 290 of 19p5 the petitioner was said to have been released on bail by the Court of Ses sions Judge. The contention of the petitioners learned counsel is that while in one case it was expressly mentioned that the petitioner had been released on bail in regard to the other case the non-mention of the fact that the petitioners having been released on bail is indicative of the fact that the detaining authority did net apply his mind to the matter before passing the detention order. We are to appreciate this contention. We are to appreciate this contention. The mere omission of the fact of being released on bail is hardly of any consequences ; it appears to be matter of mere slip or omission because as fact it was not reported that the petitioner had been released on acquittal. 27 The next argument of the petitioners learned counsel is that the detaining authority while passing the impugned order relied upon the police report. sent through the Suprintendent of Police, copies whereof were not made available 9 the petitioner art as such he could not make effective representation against his detention. Attention has been drawn in this regard to paragraphs 27 to 29 of the W. P. No. 4582 of 1986 The detaining authority has tiled his counter-affidavit, dated 68-1986 and paragraphs 27 to 29 have been replied in paragraphs 17 to 19 of this counter-affidavit It was admitted that the Superintendent of Police sent a report along with supporting material but this material was of a general nature which has not gone into subjecive satisfaction of the detaining authority. The three incidents set out in the grounds of detention were the only material on which the detaining authority based the subjective satisfac tion for the purpose of making the order of detention. It was also added that 8s per the advice it was not necessary to supply the copy of the police report to the petitioner and that non-supply thereof did not prejudice the petitioner. 28. Copy of the letter of the Superintendent of Police, dated 14-4-1986 has been produced before us by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite-parties. Besides these three incidents, dated 19-11-85. 31-12-1985 and 13-4-1986 relied upon in the grounds of detention, this letter contains a general report that petitioner Mdhusudan Bajpai aged 26 jears resident of important Mehalla Amar Naga?: of Biswan Town in indulging in activities prejudicial to public order and committing such crimes which are creating panic, tenor and such of insecurity in the area. This report also con tain a reference to an incident, dated U.-4-1986 when petitioner Madhusudan Bah s: held out a threat to Ham Lal son of Baldeo Prasad, resident of Amat larger. This report also con tain a reference to an incident, dated U.-4-1986 when petitioner Madhusudan Bah s: held out a threat to Ham Lal son of Baldeo Prasad, resident of Amat larger. Copy of the G. D. entry, dated 10-4-1986 was also appended to the report wherein Ram Lal alleged that Madhusudan Bajpai and Bhola Nath Bajpai had murdered his son and the case is pending trial before the court and that madhusudan and Bhola after being released on bail came and held out a threat that he should desist from giving evidence in this case and that they abused and threatened him. This report is by the complainant of Crime No. 225 of 1985,under Sections 147, 148, 149/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code which is the occurrence relied upon in the first ground, 29. Petitioners learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Khudi Ram Doss v. State of West Bengal & Ors. , 1975 SCO (Cr.) 435, wherein it was held that it is the duty of the court to examine as to what are the basic facts and materials which actually and is fact weighed with the detaining authority in reaching the requisite satisfaction. the judicial scrutiny cannot be foreclosed by a mere statement of the detaining autho rity whether it has taken into account only certain basic facts and materials and though other basic facts and materials were before it, it has not allowed them to influence its satisfaction. the Court is entitled to examine the correctness of the statement and determine for itself whether there were any other basic fact or materials, apart from those admitted by it, which could have reasonably influen ced the decision of the detaining authority. This material in that case was the history-sheet of the petitioner. As general proposition it was laid down that :- "it is elementary that the human mind does not function in compart ments. When it receives impressions from different sources. It is the totality of the impressions which goes into the making of the decision and it is not possible to analyse and dissect the impressions and predicate which impressions went into the making of the deci sion and which did not. When it receives impressions from different sources. It is the totality of the impressions which goes into the making of the decision and it is not possible to analyse and dissect the impressions and predicate which impressions went into the making of the deci sion and which did not. Nor is it an easy exercise to erase the impression created by particular circumstances so as to exclude the influence of such impression in the decision making process. " 30. In the facts of the case it was, however, held that the recitals in the history-sheet merely provided the backdrop of the prevailing situation in the area and did not constitute material prejudicial to the petitioner which ought to have been disclosed to him. The case diary mentions that the petitioner had picked up the habit of committing theft of copper wires and he committed thefts of copper wires that there were several thefts of transformers from some villages. It was observed that so far as the first circumstance is concerned it was merely a generalisation based on the three incidents referred to in the grounds of detention and it did not refer to any other incidents of theft of copper wires and as such it did not constitute any additional material prejudicial to the petitioner As to the second circumstance it was mentioned that this was not directed against any activity of the petitioner at all. It merely provided the back ground of the social malady which must have bean exercising the mind of the authority charged with the administration of law and order and it was in the context of this background that the three incidents referred to in the grounds of detention were considered by the District Magistrate. Accordingly on facts the plea of the detenu was rejected. 31. fn the case before us the letter of the Superintendent of Police makes a general mention of the activities of the petitioners ; in addition there is mention of one incident of 10 4-1986 involving threat by the petitioners to Ram Lal com plainant of the case pending against the petitioners under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code relatable to ground No. 1. Upon consideration of the nature of this incident, we are of the view that this did not constitute such material which would reasonably have influenced the mind of the District Magistrate as an additional ground for forming subjective satisfaction f\ r passing the date noon order. 32. Learned Additional Government Advocate has argued that the state ment on oath of the detaining authority that the subjective satisfaction was formed on the basis of the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioners should be construed as sufficient. In support of his argument reliance has been placed on John Martin v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 1975 SC 775 . In that case the affidavit of the District Magistrate was considered sufficient for his satisfaction that if the detenu was not detained he was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the commu nity. However, this is not a decision directly on point relevant to plea raised in this case. 33. The next case relied by the learned Additional Government Advocate is the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagdeo Singh Talwandi, AIR 1984 SC 444 . In this case the reports of the C. I. D. were not furnished to the petitioner and the argument raised in this regard was rejected. It was held that the detenu was not entitled to be informed of the sources of information received against him. If the order of detention refers to or relies upon any document, statement or other material, copies whereof have, of course to be supplied to the detenue but no other material which is not referred to or relied upon in the ground of detention requires to be furnished to the detenu. Icho Devi Chharoria V. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1983 was relied for this proposition. 34. The District Magistrate in the present case deposed in his affidavit in clear terms that his subjective satisfaction was based only on the material which was supplied to the petitioners. There appears no reason to reject this statement on oath, more so when the grounds of detention as presently has been found were such as could reasonably have formed subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate for passing the detention order against the petitioners. This ground is as such liable to be rejected. 35. There appears no reason to reject this statement on oath, more so when the grounds of detention as presently has been found were such as could reasonably have formed subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate for passing the detention order against the petitioners. This ground is as such liable to be rejected. 35. The learned counsel for the petitioners has cited some other case law also on the question of what amounts to public order and in support of this ground of attack but each decision is with reference to its particular facts and none any direct application. We have considered this case on its own facts. We do not, as such, considered it necessary to refer to all such decisions. 36. The next ground raised by the petitioners learned Counsel is that the petitioners representation was not considered by the State Government but was only sent to the Advisery Board, The factual position as brought on record, through the counter affidavit filed by L. N. Yadav, U. D. A. Confidential Depart ment U. P. Government is like this. The representations of the petitioners dated 19-6-1986 were received in the office of the Home Secretary on 21-6-1986 along with the comments of the District Magistrate, Sitapur. 22-6-1986 was Sunday. It was taken up on 23-6-1986 and was marked to the Confidential Section-5 of the Home Department where it was received on the next day. On the same day it was sent to Nainital to be put up before the Advisory Board where the cases of detenus were fixed for hearing before the Advisory Board on 25th, 26th and 27th June, 196 The petitioners case was heard on 27-6-1986 and it is directed to come up for further hearing on 10-7-1986 at Lucknow. The record pertaining to the detention of the petitioners is said to have been received back from Nainital on 30-6- 1986. It was dealt with and put up with office note to the Deputy Secretary who examined the matter and submitted the file to Home Secretary on 2-7-1986. In turn the Home Secretary submitted the file for higher order on 3-7-1986 and it was on 5-7-1986 that the representations of the peti tioners were rejected by the State Government. 37. It was dealt with and put up with office note to the Deputy Secretary who examined the matter and submitted the file to Home Secretary on 2-7-1986. In turn the Home Secretary submitted the file for higher order on 3-7-1986 and it was on 5-7-1986 that the representations of the peti tioners were rejected by the State Government. 37. The grievance raised by the petitioners learned counsel is the represen tations were not considered by the State Government between 24-6-1986 and 30-6-1986 and it merely sent the representations to the Advisory Board and that it was open to send the representations to the Advisory Board while maintaining a temporary cover of the file containing copy of the representations and the matter could have been dealt with in the temporary cover of the file. As has been argued by the learned Additional Government Advocate as per the practice under general orders of the Advisory Board the entire file is sent for consideration before the Advisory Board and in the absence of the file it could not be possible to examine the matter in the concerned office of the U. P. Government. In the instant situation the meetings of the Advisory Board were scheduled to be held at Nainital on 25th, 26th and 27th June, 1986 and for that reason it became necessary to send the file to Nainital, of course through concerned official on 24th June, 1986, wherefrom it was received back only on 30-6-1986 and the matter was taken up just the next day i. e. , 1-7-1986. We find it difficult to accept the contention that State Government was in a position to examine the matter in the absence of the original record which had neces sarily to be sent to Nainital for presentation before the Advisory Board, On facts, as such this was not a case of non- consideration of the representation by the State Government. 38. Related to this question is the ground of delay in consideration of the representations of the petitioners by the State Government. For the reasons already discussed, the representations of the petitioners could not be considered by the State Government between 24th June and 30th June, 1986 and, as such, the ground of delayed consideration of the representation also fails. 39. Related to this question is the ground of delay in consideration of the representations of the petitioners by the State Government. For the reasons already discussed, the representations of the petitioners could not be considered by the State Government between 24th June and 30th June, 1986 and, as such, the ground of delayed consideration of the representation also fails. 39. The last ground raised is that the District Magistrate did not go through the bail orders which would have indicated that the petitioners were not concerned with the offence alleged them. Petitioners learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in Nanha Singh v. Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur and others, 1984 All LJ 899 relevant para 18. The District Magistrate in that case was aware of the petititioner having been acquitted by the Sessions Judge. It was held that the District Magistrate was required to evaluate and take into consideration the effect of such acquittal before deciding to base his satisfaction on the occurrence in respect of which the detenu was acquitted by a Court of law. It was observed that the reasons given by the court in this regard would be a relevant material which can, in the normal course, affect the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It was held that in such cases, it was obligatory on the District Magistrate to scan the judgment of acquittal and there after to form his own personal opinion either in accordance with the reasons contained in the judgment of the Criminal Court or, if there be legitimate reasons to believe even contrary to it. 40. It is difficult to accept the argument that the acquittal of a case and the reasons of acquittal contained in the judgment are equitable to the matter of bail. While a final judgment of acquittal is handed out after considerations and disposal of the matter on the basis of the evidence on record, bail is granted not upon adjudication of the merits underlying the prosecution case. At the stage of consideration of the bail matter, the gravity of the allegations and the prima facie evidence in support of the case may inter alia come up for considera tion. As such the order for grant of bail cannot be rated on equal terms with the judgment of acquittal. At the stage of consideration of the bail matter, the gravity of the allegations and the prima facie evidence in support of the case may inter alia come up for considera tion. As such the order for grant of bail cannot be rated on equal terms with the judgment of acquittal. Petitioners learned counsel did not produce before us copies of the bail orders the contents whereof could lend any support to the argument that the court granting bail made any adverse observation as to the merits of the prosecution case even at the stage of consideration of bail. Accord ingly, we are not impressed by the argument raised in this behalf. 41. No other ground has been raised before us. As a result the challenge to the validity of the order of detention fails and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 42. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Petitions dismissed. .