Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 657 (GAU)

Thokchom Subol Singh v. District Magistrate

2010-08-26

ASHOK POTSANGBAM, MAIBAM B.K.SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Maibam B.K. Singh, J. 1. This is to dispose of W. P(Cril.) No. 58 of 2010 and W. P. (Cril.) No. 59, which have been filed challenging the preventative detention orders No. Cril./NSA/No. 27 of 2010 dated 25.03.2010 and No. Cril./NSA/No. 28 of 2010, dated 25.03.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, as against Shri Th. Subol Singh and his wife, Smt. Th. Indrani Devi, respectively under National Security Act, 1980. Both the detenus are found to have been detained purportedly with a view to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Since common questions of laws and facts are involved in these two cases, they are proceeded and heard jointly. 2. We have heard Mr. Kh. Mani Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the Petitioners-detenus, Mr. A. Modhuchandra, learned Addl. G.. appearing on behalf of the State Respondents and Mr. C. Kamal, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 in both the cases. 3. There is no dispute that both the detention orders have been approved and confirmed by the State Government vide orders dated 05.04.2010 and 11.05.2010 respectively. Both the Petitioners-detenus were in custody in connection with the investigation of FIR Case No. 102(3) 2010 IPS under Section 17/20 UA(P)A. Act at the relevant time of passing the impugned detention orders. Further, in respect of both the Petitioners-detenus, the District Magistrate, Imphal West, formed his subjective satisfaction on the basis of the police report that both of them were likely to be released on bail in the near future by the normal Criminal Courts as bails were granted in similar cases by the Criminal Courts. As per allegations made in the grounds of detention in respect of both the Petitioners-detenus, they frequently visited Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa to meet Th. Nando, who had been in the jail in connection with the case for murder of one baby Lungnila Elizabeth and the said Nando Singh, who is an active member of KCP, utilized their services as courier among KCP members working under the command of the said Nando Singh. Further allegations are that the two detenus transported arms and ammunitions used by the KCP members from one place to another and that they gave shelter to KCP members. The detenu in WP (Cril.) No. 58 of 2010, namely, Th. Further allegations are that the two detenus transported arms and ammunitions used by the KCP members from one place to another and that they gave shelter to KCP members. The detenu in WP (Cril.) No. 58 of 2010, namely, Th. Subol Singh, had been arrested in connection with FIR Case No. 203 (7) 2008 TBL PS, under Sections 19 UA(P)A. Act and FIR Case No. 258(9) 2008 TBL PS, under Sections 17/20 UA (P) A. Act. It is also alleged that the two detenus, in association with KCP female cadres, namely, Km. Salam Geeta Devi (a) Abe and Thoudam Nganbi Devi, collected money from general public and transported arms from one place to another. 4. One of the grounds submitted by Mr. Kh. Mani Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the Petitioners-detenus challenging their continuing detention under the National Security Act, 1980 is that the State Government confirmed the detention orders passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West, mechanically and without due application of its mind. In this connection, the learned Counsel of the Petitioners-detenus' draws our attention to the relevant grounds of detention dated 29.03.2010 as well as the relevant confirmation orders dated 11.05.2010 and submits that though allegations as against both the Petitioners-detenus in their respective grounds of detention by the detaining authority are to the effect that both of them are sympathizer of the said unlawful organization, at the time of issuing the confirmation order, the State Government is found to have considered them as active members of the said unlawful organization. This discrepancy about the status of the Petitioners-detenus is, according to the learned Counsel of the Petitioners-detenus, due to non-application of mind by the State Government 5. On careful consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel of the Petitioners-detenus in the light of the materials before the Court, we cannot agree with the submission of the learned Counsel of the Petitioners-detenus. We have ascertained that the basic facts forming the grounds of detention in respect of both the Petitioners-detenus remain the same at the time of passing the impugned detention orders as well as at the time of passing the impugned confirmation orders. On the consideration of the materials, the detaining authority was of the opinion that the Petitioners-detenus were sympathizer of the unlawful organization. On the consideration of the materials, the detaining authority was of the opinion that the Petitioners-detenus were sympathizer of the unlawful organization. On the other hand, on consideration of the same set of materials, the State Government was of the view that the Petitioners-detenus were active members of the banned organization. The above said differences in forming opinion by two different authorities about the status of the Petitioners-detenus on the basis of the same set of materials cannot be considered as something warranting interference in respect of the impugned confirmation order. Accordingly, the first ground submitted by the learned Counsel of the petitioners-detenus is not in our considered opinion, sufficient for interfering either with the impugned detention orders or the confirmation orders. 6. The second ground submitted by the learned Counsel of the Petitioners-detenus is that the grounds of detention furnished to both the Petitioners-detenus are vague lacking in particulars and thereby Petitioners-detenus have been deprived of their right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to make an effective representation to the concerned authorities. 7. In respect of both the Petitioners-detenus, the grounds of detention are found to have been based on the statements given by the Petitioners-detenus at the time of their interrogation by the police in connection with FIR Case No. 102(3) 2008 IPS, under Sections 17/20 UA(P) A. Act. The said facts were not based on statements of any other persons. In this situation, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel of the Petitioners-detenus to the effect that the Petitioners-detenus have been prevented from making an effective representation to the concerned authorities in respect of their detentions. On perusal of the representations submitted by the Petitioners-detenus, we do not find sufficient basis for forming the opinion that they have been deprived of their right of making an effective representation to the concerned authorities due to vagueness in the grounds of detention and as such, this second ground is also not accepted. 8. The third ground submitted by the learned Counsel of the Petitioners-detenus is that the Petitioners-detenus were never supplied with a police report and history sheets and as such, they have been prejudiced in making an effective representation to the concerned authorities thereby there has been violation of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 9. 8. The third ground submitted by the learned Counsel of the Petitioners-detenus is that the Petitioners-detenus were never supplied with a police report and history sheets and as such, they have been prejudiced in making an effective representation to the concerned authorities thereby there has been violation of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 9. On perusal of the materials before the Court, we have ascertained that as per para No. 5 of both the grounds of detention dated 29.3.2010 furnished to the two Petitioners-detenus, the documents forming the basic grounds of the two detenus' detention were enclosed. Amongst the said documents, the police report and the history sheets are not found to have been included. In the absence of anything to show that any other documents other than those mentioned in the said grounds of detention were also furnished to the Petitioners-detenus, one may reasonably conclude that the documents mentioned in para No. 5 of both the grounds of detention dated 29.03.2010 were the only documents furnished to the two Petitioners-detenus. On perusal of the said documents furnished to the two Petitioners-detenus, we are of the opinion that they could have been the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. At the same time, we have found that most of the said documents furnished to the Petitioners-detenus were part of the police report and they could have been the basis of passing the said detention order as against the two Petitioners-detenus, We do not find sufficient basis for concluding that any other part of the police report relied upon by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the Petitioners-detenus. Merely, on the basis of tile reference of the police report in the detention order dated 25.3.2010, one cannot reasonably conclude that the detaining authority relied upon it inasmuch as the document furnished to the Petitioners-detenus would have been the basis of the said detention without relying to any other documents. There is also no basis for thinking that the history sheet was relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order. 10. In the light of the above considerations, the third ground submitted by the learned Counsel of the Petitioners-detenus is not accepted. There is also no basis for thinking that the history sheet was relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order. 10. In the light of the above considerations, the third ground submitted by the learned Counsel of the Petitioners-detenus is not accepted. When the detaining authority has merely referred to some documents in the narration of events and has not, relied upon them, failure to supply the same cannot cause any prejudice to the Petitioners-detenus in making their respective effective representations. Only when the detaining authority has not only referred to but also relied upon them in arriving at necessary satisfaction then, failure to supply these documents, may, in certain cases depending upon the facts and circumstances, amount to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In the present case, we are not satisfied that the said documents were relied upon by the detaining authority and as such, non-supply of them will not have any legal effect upon the impugned detention orders. 11. In the result, we do not find any valid and acceptable ground for interfering with the continuing preventive detention of the two Petitioners-detenus under the National Security Act, 1980. These writ petitions have no merit and they are hereby dismissed. No Order as to costs. Petition dismissed.