Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 284 (JK)

Bashir Ahmad Rather v. State

2003-09-15

PERMOD KOHLI

body2003
1. Detenue was initially arrested in FIR No. 116 of 2002 under Sections 489-A, 489-V, 489-C RPC registered with Police Station, Sopore for counterfeiting currency notes. He was later on detained under preventive detention vide Detention Order No. DMB/PSA/53 of 2002 dated 6.7.2002 passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla. 2. The detention has been challenged by the detenue through his father primarily on the ground that counterfeiting of currency does not fall within the scope and ambit of security of State as defined under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The other grounds of challenge are that detenue was not served with the grounds of detention, he was not produced before the Advisory Board constituted under the Act and the Government has not approved the detention within the time stipulated. 3. The Detaining Authority has filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the petition. It is stated that the detenue was ordered to be detained vide Detention order No.DMB/PSA/53 of 2002 dated 6.7.2002. The detention of the petitioner was approved vide Government Order No.Home/PB-V/1674of2002 dated 17.7.2002 well within 12 days. He was taken into preventive custody on 18.7.2002. The grounds of detention were served upon the detenue on the same day. The grounds were also read over and explained to him in the language known and understood by him. It is also stated that the detinue was produced before the Advisory Board on 29.7.2002. The detention of the petitioner was approved by the Board and finally the Government ordered his detention for a period of 24 months for his activities, which were considered to be prejudicial to the security of the State. Regarding supply of copy of FIR, it is stated that it is not necessary to supply copy of FIR to the detenue. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Record of detention has been produced before me. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the detention of the petitioner is liable to be quashed primarily on one ground that the allegations contained in the grounds of detention are not related to the security of the State. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Record of detention has been produced before me. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the detention of the petitioner is liable to be quashed primarily on one ground that the allegations contained in the grounds of detention are not related to the security of the State. In order to project his view point, he has referred to Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act and submitted that the act attributed to the petitioner does not fall within any of the definition specified in the said section. According to him, counterfeiting of currency can only be a criminal offence punishable under law, if established and has nothing to do with the security of the State. 6. I have carefully perused Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, relevant extract of which reads as under: 8. Detention of certain persons (1) The Government may.... (a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (i) the security of the State or the maintenance of the public order, or.....� 7. The allegations as contained in the grounds of detention against the petitioner are that he, in connivance with some other persons, counterfeited the currency notes and attempted to put the currency notes in circulation with a view to destroy and destabilize the economy of the State. According to the allegations, he counterfeited approximately 40 lacs of the currency notes, out of which, 26,40,000/- have been recovered. 8. Security of the State has not been defined under the Act. The language used in the Act, makes it clear that any activity which is considered to be prejudicial to the security of the State, falls within the purview of the Act. Now relevant question, which needs consideration, is, whether counterfeiting of currency and putting the same in circulation that too in abundance, does effect the security of the State or not? The word Security of State� cannot be viewed in a compass nor any narrow meaning can be given to the same. The language of the Section 8 does not limit the scope of word Security of State�. It says any person acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of State, can be prevented by detention. The word Security of State� cannot be viewed in a compass nor any narrow meaning can be given to the same. The language of the Section 8 does not limit the scope of word Security of State�. It says any person acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of State, can be prevented by detention. The word any manner� has much wider connotation and any activity which the Detaining Authority considers to be effecting the security of the State falls, within the purview of the Act. Counterfeiting of currency and putting the same in circulation that too in abundance, definitely destroys and destabilize the economy of the State and if the economy of the State is shattered, it affects the security of the State. The Apex Court in Union of India and another Vs. Venkateshan S. and another reported in (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 285 was considering detention of a person under COFEPOSA Act. Though the allegations against the detenue in aforesaid case were that he was indulging in receiving and making payment in India on behalf of a resident of Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), a search was conducted at the detenue™s residential premises and also at his office premises on 22.9.1999 and 23.9.1999. As a result of the search, Indian currency of about 42,90,000/- was seized. On these allegations, he was detained in preventive detention. His detention was quashed by the High Court. However, the Apex Court allowed the appeal against the judgment of the High Court by holding: Dealing in foreign exchange is regulated by the Act. For violation of foreign exchange regulations, penalty can be levied and such activity is certainly an illegal activity, which is prejudicial to conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange. From the objects and reasons of the COFEPOSA Act, it is apparent that the purpose of the Act is to prevent violation of foreign exchange regulations or smuggling activities which are having increasingly deleterious effect on the national economy and thereby serious effect on the security of the State....� 9. In view of the observation of the Apex Court what emerges is that, any act which effects the security of State, directly or indirectly falls within the purview of the security of the State and detention on that account, cannot be said to be in contravention to the provision of the Act. 10. Regarding other grounds urged by Mr. In view of the observation of the Apex Court what emerges is that, any act which effects the security of State, directly or indirectly falls within the purview of the security of the State and detention on that account, cannot be said to be in contravention to the provision of the Act. 10. Regarding other grounds urged by Mr. Hussain learned counsel for petitioner that detenue was not served with the grounds of detention. From the record, it is revealed that the grounds of detention were served upon detenue through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Jail, Srinagar on 18.7.2002 on the same day when he was taken in preventive custody. The detenue has appended his thumb impression on the receipt showing service of grounds of detention. Admittedly, the grounds of detention have been served within time prescribed under law. Detention Order in respect of detenue dated 6.7.2002 was approved on 17.7.2002 i.e. within 12 days of the passing of detention order. From the record, it is also revealed that detenue was produced before the Advisory Board. He was in formed of his right to make representation. The grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue as per affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority. Regarding the supply of copy of FIR, the issue has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.57/2001 titled Rustam Wani Vs. State of J&K and in Kamarunnissa Vs. Union of India and another, reported as AIR 1991 SC 1640. From the record, it appears that all constitutional safeguards have been adhered to In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.