JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---Dewa Sharma, a detenu has, by this habeas corpus petition, assailed the order of his detention under section 3(2) of the National Security Act (the N.S. Act) and his continued detention. 2. The detention order was passed on 24-10-1989 by the Commissioner of police, Nagpur and grounds of detention also served on the same day. It was approved by the State Government on 1-11-1989, after which reference was made to the Advisory Board on 4-11-1989. Report of the Advisory Board was received on 5-12-1989 and the detention order was confirmed on 7-12-1989. The detenu had sent a representation against his detention, on 6-11-1989 to the Advisory Board. The copies of the representation were sent to the State Government through the Jailor. The said representation was not separately considered as, according to the State Government, it was not addressed to it. However, it was taken into consideration while confirming the order of detention alongwith the report of the Advisory Board; of which the representation was part. 3. A host of points are raised by Shri Jaiswal, the learned Counsel for the detenu, but consideration of only one of them is sufficient for the disposal of this petition and hence it is unnecessary to advert to the other points. The point is, whether non-consideration of the order of acquittal dated 16-10-1989 recorded by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Case No. 261 of 1987, in which the detenu was charged for murder of Lalu Gorkha on 18-3-1987, vitiates the order of detention. The basic facts pertaining to that point are: In the year 1986-87 the detenu was accused of committing only one murder for which Sessions Trial No. 261 of 1987 was held. The opening part of the grounds of detention (Annexure 2) reads thus : "Detention Order No. DET/NSA/38/1989 dated 24-10-1989 has been made against you on the grounds stated below : Since the year 1986, you have been continuously engaging yourself in the commissions of dangerous and disported acts such as committing murders (in the years 1986, 1987) abusing people in filthy language and threatening to kill them, kidnapping subjecting people to wrongful confinement, violating prohibitory orders in force, voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons, etc. You have thereby created terror in the minds of the people. You have thereby created terror in the minds of the people. Your activities which are found to be prejudical to the maintenance of public order are stated below..." The above paragraph is followed by the instances of prejudical activities of the detenu in the years 1988 and 1989. After that follows a recital that "from the grounds stated above", the Commissioner was satisfied that the activities of the detenu were prejudical to the maintenance of public order. 4. The crux of the matter is whether the above order of acquittal dated 16-10-1989 passed before formation of the grounds of detention was a material fact which would have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority one way or the other in making up mind while passing the order. 5. The respondents have not disputed the factual position but have been taken a stand in the return that "the mention of the fact of committing murders (in the Year 1986,1987) by petitioner is not a ground for instant detention but is a mere introductory para which has no concern whatsoever with the grounds formulated for instant detention". 6. The above stand does not impress us at all. Now, the term "grounds" referred to in Article 22(5) of the Constitution or section 8(1) of the N.S. Act means nothing but the entire factual material appearing against the detenu to the Detaining Authority and the factual inferences drawn by him on that basis which went into formation of the requisite subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention. 7. Annexure 2 reads as a whole leaves no scope to accept the defence that reference in the opening para to factual aspect of the murders committed by the detenu and his other activities resulting into creation of terror in the minds of the people was merely in the nature of a preamble or introduction or a prelude to the grounds of detention and that the said para did not form part of the grounds of detention. It is settled legal position that the prejudical activities which create terror in the minds of the people have nexus with the maintenance of public order and, therefore, annexure 2 will have to be read in that context. What is important is not the form but the substance of the grounds. 8. It is settled legal position that the prejudical activities which create terror in the minds of the people have nexus with the maintenance of public order and, therefore, annexure 2 will have to be read in that context. What is important is not the form but the substance of the grounds. 8. The Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with defence of this type taken by the Detaining Authority in the case of (Mohd. Yusuf Rather v. State of Jammu and Kashmir)1, (1979)4 Supreme Court Cases 370 wherein after elucidating the difference between "preamble" and "grounds" it is observed that no distinction between introductory facts, background facts and grounds as such can be drawn and that all allegations of fact which have led to the passing of the order of detention are grounds of detention. Following observation in paragraph 22 of the report are to the point: "The attempt of Dr. Singhvi was to treat, that allegation which according to him was the immediate cause of the order of detention as the only ground of detention and all other allegations earlier made as mere introductory and background facts. We are unable to dissect the factual allegations mentioned in the document supplied to the detenue as furninishing the grounds of detention. The last straw which breaks a camel's back does not make weightless the other loads on the camel's back." 9. Once it is held that the alleged murderous activity of the detenu was also a ground of detention, the conclusion is inevitable that the fact of his acquittal from the charge in the trial for that offence concluded before the order of detention was material and vital and its non-placement before or non consideration by the Detaining Authority vitiates the requisite subjective satisfaction resulting into invalidation of the order of detention. That aspect of the matter is concluded by several decisions of the Supreme Court including the latest in (Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal v. The Police Commissioner)2, A.I.R. 1989 Supreme Court 1282 wherein it is observed: "It is clear to our mind that in the case on hand, at the time when the Detaining Authority passed the detention order this vital fact, namely, the acquittals of the detenu in case Nos. mentioned at Serial Nos. mentioned at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 have not been brought to his notice and on the other hand they were withheld and the Detaining authority was given to understand that the trial of those cases were pending. The explanation given by the learned Counsel for the respondents, as we have already pointed out, cannot be accepted for a moment. The result is that the non placing of the material fact-namely the acquittal of detenu in the above said material fact-namely the acquittal of detenu in the above said two cases resulting in non-application of minds of the Detaining Authority to the said fact has vitiated the requisite subjective satisfaction, rendering the impugned detention order invalid". The said decision has been followed in the case of (Ramesh v. State of Gujarat)3, A.I.R. 1989 Supreme Court 1881. 10. In the result the petition is allowed and rule made absolute. The impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside. The detenu be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other matter. Petition allowed. -----