Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1468 (MP)

Mohammad Azam v. State of M. P.

2014-11-13

A.M.KHANWILKAR, VANDANA KASREKAR

body2014
ORDER 1. Amendment application is allowed, in the interest of justice. Petitioner is permitted to urge grounds in the amendment applicant. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the detention order dated 19.8.2014 passed against the petitioner No.2 by the District Magistrate, Khandwa in exercise of powers under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. 4. Only three grounds have been raised before us to question the validity of the impugned detention order. 5. The first ground is that after the petitioner No.2 was taken into custody in furtherance of the detention order, the grounds of detention have not been served on him. To buttress this submission reliance is placed on documents Annexures P-1 and P-2. Relying on these documents, it is asserted that these documents do not reveal that the petitioner has received those documents or that the petitioner was duly served with those documents. This plea, however, has been countered by the respondents by filing reply-affidavit and more so by producing on record, the official documents to indicate that the signature of the petitioner was obtained on the grounds of detention after the same was duly served. That fact has been contemporaneously recorded in the Rojnamcha dated 20.8.2011. Copy of the Rojnamcha is also placed on record. In the wake of these official documents depicting acknowledgement of receipt of grounds of detention or the order of detention, by the petitioner, the fact that no initials are found on Annexures P-1 and P-2 cannot be the basis to presume to the contrary. 6. The fact that the grounds of detention were served on 20.8.2014 is reinforced from the official record including the contemporaneous note made in the Rojnamcha on 20.8.2014. The falsity of these documents has not been put in issue by the petitioner. As is observed in another Writ Petition No.15524/2014 decided on 29.10.2014, these official records would give rise to a presumption, in law, that the same have been maintained correctly in the ordinary course of business. This presumption, no doubt is rebuttal presumption. As aforesaid, the presumption has not been rebutted at all. In this view of the matter, the argument under consideration cannot be taken forwarded and will be of no avail to the petitioner. 7. This presumption, no doubt is rebuttal presumption. As aforesaid, the presumption has not been rebutted at all. In this view of the matter, the argument under consideration cannot be taken forwarded and will be of no avail to the petitioner. 7. The second ground urged before us is that the petitioner is allegedly involved in connection with Crime No.449/2014. However, the FIR registered in that case does not reveal the name of the petitioner as an accused. There is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the said offence. In any case, one solitary criminal case cannot be the basis to invoke action of preventive detention against the petitioner. We are not impressed by this submission. The preventive detention is resorted to on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority that the arrest of the detenue is essential and within the framework of the provisions of the National Security Act. It is not open for this Court to sit over to that subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority as a Court of appeal. In our opinion, merely because the petitioner is allegedly involved only in one criminal case and does not have any past antecedents, cannot be the basis to question the subjective satisfaction of the detaining Authority. The detention order passed by detaining Authority has been approved by the Advisory Board, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Besides the petitioner, the other two accused persons named in the same crime were also detained but the Advisory Board has not approved their detention. 8. Taking clue from this development, the petitioner contends that the petitioner is being discriminated and treated differently than the two persons who were also involved in the same crime as is the case of the petitioner. This argument will have to be stated to be rejected. For, every detention order is required to be scrutinized on its own merits. As regards the two other detention orders, if the Advisory Board has disapproved the same that does not necessarily mean that the decision of the Advisory Board in so far as, the petitioner’s detention order is erroneous or improper. On the other hand, it would be safe to infer that the Advisory Board considered the matter objectively on case to case basis. In our opinion, even the third submission is devoid of any substance and ought to be rejected. 9. On the other hand, it would be safe to infer that the Advisory Board considered the matter objectively on case to case basis. In our opinion, even the third submission is devoid of any substance and ought to be rejected. 9. No other ground has been urged before us. 10. As a result, this petition ought to fail and hence dismissed. ......................