R. K. RASTOGI, J. This Habeas Cor pus petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 1-5-2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti against him under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act and for his release from detention. 2. It has been alleged in the petition that the petitioner is a peace loving and law abid ing citizen and he has not been convicted in any case so far. On 16-2-08 at about 9. 30 a. m. a F. I. R. was lodged by Sri Yashwant Chaudhary against him and other co-accused persons under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I. P. C. at police station Lalganj District Basti and on the basis of that report case crime No. 63/08 was registered against him. On the ba sis of this report the District magistrate, Basti, the respondent No. 2, passed an order against him for his detention under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act on 1-5-08. The pe titioner has challenged the validity of this or der on several grounds in the present Habeas Corpus petition. 3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavits also in reply to those counter affi davits. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner first of all submitted before us that the District Magistrate, Basti, respondent No. 2 did not apply his mind before passing the impugned order and he simply signed the detention or der in a mechanical manner. He further sub mitted that a perusal of the grounds of deten tion contained in the order dated 1-5-08 (An-nexure-2) shows that these are verbatim re production of the report of the Inspector of Police Station Lalganj dated 30-4-2008 (An-nexure-4 ). 5. In support of this contention he cited before us a Division Bench Ruling of this Court in Tunnu v. Superintendent, District Jail, Ballia and others: 2000 (27) A. Cr. R. 611: 2000 All LJ 1428. In this case also in the grounds of detention, there was almost ver batim reproduction of the report submitted by sponsoring authority with this charge only that the name of the petitioner in the report was substituted by word Aap in the grounds of the detention order. R. 611: 2000 All LJ 1428. In this case also in the grounds of detention, there was almost ver batim reproduction of the report submitted by sponsoring authority with this charge only that the name of the petitioner in the report was substituted by word Aap in the grounds of the detention order. The Court, relying upon a ruling of the Honble Apex Court in Jai Singh v. State of J& K : (1985) 1 SCC 561 : ( AIR 1985 SC 764 ) held that apparently the detention order had been passed in me chanical manner, casually and without appli cation of mind and so it stood vitiated. He also cited before us another ruling of Honble Supreme Court in Rajesh Vashdev Adnani v. State of Maharashtra and others : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 61. This was a case in which the detention order was passed under Section 3 (1) (i) & (iii), COFFPOSA and the detention order was verbatim reproduction of the pro posal of the sponsoring authority except use of the word aap in the order for the word he in the proposal. It was held that such a detention order suffers from non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority at the time of actual preparation of the deten tion order and grounds thereof and so it was sustainable. 6. We have gone through the proposal for detention of the petitioner submitted by the Inspector of P. S. Lalganj (Annexure-4) and the grounds for detention furnished to the pe titioner on 1-5-08 along with the detention order which is annexure-2. A comparative reading of both these documents reveals that the contents of paras 1 and 2 of Annexure-4 have been almost virtually reproduced in paras 1 and 2 of Annexiire-2 with this change only that the word aap has been used in the grounds (Annexure 2) in place of reference to the petitioner either by name or by pro noun in the report. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid facts go to show that there was no application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate at the time of passing the order of detention so he simply signed the order casu ally in a mechanical manner and, therefore, the order stands vitiated. We agree with this contention in view of the discussion attempted above. We agree with this contention in view of the discussion attempted above. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner fur ther submitted in para 2 of the report of the Inspector (Annexure 4) as well as in the grounds of detention furnished by the District Magistrate (Annexure 2), there is refer ence of case crime No. 69/88, P. S. Lalganj under sections 302, 307, 394 I. P. C. and it has been stated in it that the charge sheet was sub mitted against the petitioner and his col leagues in that cast and this fact has also been taken into consideration for passing the de tention order against the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub mitted that the above case was tried in the Court of Sessions at Basti as S. T. No. 193/88 and the petitioner was acquitted in this case vide judgment and order dated 18-9-90. He has asserted this fact in para 28 of the peti tion has been given by respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 in their counter affidavits, and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, respondent No. 2 the follow ing reply has been given in its para 14: "that the contents of paragraph Nos. 27 and 28 of the writ petition, as stated, are not admitted. In reply thereto, it is submitted that the detention order has been passed on the basis of the incident relating to the Case Crime No. 63 of 2008 under sections 147, 148,149, 302, 506, 34 I. P. C. , P. S. Lalganj, District Basti. " 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub mitted that this reply is vague. In reply thereto, it is submitted that the detention order has been passed on the basis of the incident relating to the Case Crime No. 63 of 2008 under sections 147, 148,149, 302, 506, 34 I. P. C. , P. S. Lalganj, District Basti. " 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub mitted that this reply is vague. He further sub mitted that the District Magistrate could not deny this fact that the petitioner had been ac quitted in the above case, and he has simply taken a plea that it was not taken as a basis for passing the detention order he pointed out that it is clear from the report of the Inspector as well as from the order passed by the Dis trict Magistrate that the above case in which the petitioner has been acquitted has also been taken into consideration for passing the de tention order mentioning this fact that the charge-sheet had been submitted against the petitioner and other co-accused persons but the acquittal order passed in favour of the pe titioner has not been considered by the au thorities and so the detention order is vitiated. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited before us a ruling of the Honble Supreme Court dated 22-11-1985 in Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1985 arising out of special leave petition (Crl) No. 3068 of 1985, Ashok Kumar Dixit v. State of U. P. and others. In this case it was held that where the rival version, which was cer tainly a vital circumstance to be considered by the detaining authority before passing any order of detention was not taken into account and was ignored, it is a circumstance that vi tiates the order of detention. The acquittal order passed in favour of the petitioner in the above case has not been taken into account and so the detention order stands vitiated on this ground also. 10. The acquittal order passed in favour of the petitioner in the above case has not been taken into account and so the detention order stands vitiated on this ground also. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner chal lenged the order of detention on several other grounds also, but since the detention order has been found by us to be invalid on the above grounds of verbatim reproduction of the report of the Inspector in the grounds of detention and for non consideration of the acquittal order of the petitioner in the above Case Crime No. 69/88 as well as for non ap plication of mind by the detaining authority, in view of the law laid down in the rulings referred to above, we need not consider those other points and we are allowing this petition on these grounds only. 11. Hence, for the reasons aforementioned, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 1-5-2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Agra un der Section 3 (2) of National Security Act is hereby quashed. Let the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case. Petition allowed. .