JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.—Heard Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State and perused the materiel available on record. 2. This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to set at liberty forthwith, the petitioner-Neeraj, who is detained in District Jail, Gautambudh Nagar, as per order dated 28.8.2015passed by the District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar (respondent No. 3) in exercise of power under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NSA’) and also to quash the above order. 3. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner-Neeraj was arrested by the police of P.S.-Ecotec-III, Gautambudh Nagar alongwith his two associates namely Raju @ Abid and Ajay Singh while going on a motorcycle and scooty on 16.7.2015 and counterfeit currency of Rs. 2,94,000/- in total were recovered from their possession. All the three accused persons belongs to District Mainpuri, U.P., Katihar, Bihar and Farrukhabad, U.P. respectively but at the time of arrest petitioner-Neeraj and co-accused Ajay Singh were residing at Sector 5, Gurgaon in front of S.B.R. School and Raju @ Abid was found residing at Sector 49, NOIDA. The police registered a case at Crime No. 240 of 2015, under Section 489B/489C IPC. The investigation was in progress on the date of detention order dated 28.8.2015. 4. The background of the impugned order is that the Station House Officer, P.S.-Ecotec-III, Gautambudh Nagar submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Gautambudh Nagar through proper channel on 19.8.2015 stating therein that the petitioner is trying to bail out himself through his relatives. Hearing of bail application has been fixed on 31.8.2015 and there is every possibility of his release. The activities of accused Neeraj in possessing counterfeit currency and its supply in the area National Capital Region will be a threat to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The Circle Officer, Greater NOIDA-3, Gautambudh Nagar forwarded above report on 20.8.2015 to Senior Superintendent of Police through S.P. (Rural), Gautambudh Nagar. 5. The activities of accused Neeraj in possessing counterfeit currency and its supply in the area National Capital Region will be a threat to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The Circle Officer, Greater NOIDA-3, Gautambudh Nagar forwarded above report on 20.8.2015 to Senior Superintendent of Police through S.P. (Rural), Gautambudh Nagar. 5. The District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar took cognizance of the matter and on satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner would grossly affect the security of State and maintenance of the public order as there will be every possibility of petitioner being engaged in activities of transportation and supply of counterfeit currency in the area after released on bail, passed the detention order of the petitioner on 28.8.2015, which was subsequently confirmed by the State Government by order dated 16.10.2015. 6. With this backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law as no such incident took place, wherein the petitioner’s involvement was found prejudicial to the security to the State or maintenance of the public order or maintenance of supply and services essential to the community. 7. Now, we are come to the moot controversy raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the provision of Section 3 of NSA. It is pointed out that under the said provision, an order with respect to any person for detention may be passed with a view to preventing him from acting, in any manner, prejudicial; (i) to the Security of the State; (ii) to the maintenance of the public order; (iii) to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that above three categories are mutually exclusive and detaining authority has to be satisfied on the fact as to under which of three grounds mentioned above, a person is required to be detained. He further submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in Crime No. 240 of 2015, under Section 489B and 489C IPC by Police Ecotec-III, Gautambudh Nagar and nothing was recovered from his possession. He further pointed out that in the year 2012 on the basis of statement of co-accused, petitioner’s name surfaced in Crime No. 592 of 2012, under Sections 489B and 489C IPC, P.S. Soorajpur, District Gautambudh Nagar, wherein petitioner was released on bail. He further pointed out that in the year 2012 on the basis of statement of co-accused, petitioner’s name surfaced in Crime No. 592 of 2012, under Sections 489B and 489C IPC, P.S. Soorajpur, District Gautambudh Nagar, wherein petitioner was released on bail. In above case also petitioner was falsely implicated. 9. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that in Case Crime No. 592 of 2012 against 11 accused persons, the First Information Report was registered and on tips of informant that some persons are involved in transportation and supply of counterfeit currency from Malda, West Bengal to National Capital Region, a Special Task Force Team conducted arrest and an Innova Car without papers and Rs. 20,50,000/- counterfeit currency were recovered from the possession of 6 accused persons who were arrested on the spot. During investigation, the name of petitioner surfaced in conspiracy and commission of offence and Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against petitioner, his real brother Sonu and his mother Smt. Kamla Aunty alongwith others. Accused named in the First Information Report were also charge-sheeted and trial is pending. Whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated in both cases is matter to be considered and decided during the trial after following due procedure of law. Till date of detention order, there was no finding in favour of accused. Trial in both cases is pending. 10. Economic de-establishing is deadly poison for health and existence of a developing country. Certainly, economic disorder, in contradiction to the criminal activities backed by use of force, results in serious prejudice to ‘public order’. Therefore, the detention will not be illegal merely because order of the detention is passed only to prevent the detenu from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of ‘public order’ or the security of State. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in Case Crime No. 592 of 2012, the petitioner was granted bail 21.4.2014 and the report of Station House Officer of Police Station-Ecotec-III, Gautambudh Nagar dated 19.8.2015 endorsed by Circle Officer, Superintendent of Police (Rural) and Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautambudh Nagar is just a mala fide exercise to detain the petitioner under ‘NSA’. There was no such material before the District Magistrate to accord his subjective satisfaction. There was no such material before the District Magistrate to accord his subjective satisfaction. The report submitted by Station House Officer and endorsed by Superior Officer does not disclose any activities relating to supply of counterfeit currency to some others till imposition of detention order. The investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of any witnesses to whom counterfeit currency have been supplied or handed by the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Rajesh Gulati v. Government of N.C.T. Of Delhi and another, passed in Appeal (Criminal) No. 866 of 2002 dated 29.8.2002, Fazal Ghosi, Wahid, Ayaz Ahmadand Riaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, passed in Appeal (Cri.) Nos. 301 and 302 of 1986 on 29.6.1987 and Smt. Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur and others, passed in Appeal (Cri.) No. 1849 of 2010 decided on 14.9.2010, wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that power of detention under the NSA can be exercised only with a view to preventing a person from acting in a manner which may be prejudicial any of the considerations set forth in Section 3 of NSA and thereby, preventive detention is not intended as a punitive measure, as a curtailment of liberty by way of punishment for an offence already committed and punishable under Common Criminal Law of Nation or State. No doubt the satisfaction of the District Magistrate making the detention order is subjective in nature, but, even subjective satisfaction, must be based upon some pertinent material. 13. In the light of above law as propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court now the case of present petitioner has to be seen and assessed. The nature of offences in aforesaid three decisions were altogether different from the nature of offences against the petitioner under common criminal law. 14. On behalf of respondent No. 3, a counter-affidavit dated 29.1.2016 sworn by Sri N.P. Singh, District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar is on record. From perusal of the aforesaid counter-affidavit, it transpires that police thoroughly investigated the case of Crime No. 240 of 2015 and charge-sheet has already been submitted. The District Magistrate further stated that detention order dated 28.8.2015 was approved by the State Government. On 7.9.2015 an undated representation of petitioner was forwarded to the State Government which was duly considered. From perusal of the aforesaid counter-affidavit, it transpires that police thoroughly investigated the case of Crime No. 240 of 2015 and charge-sheet has already been submitted. The District Magistrate further stated that detention order dated 28.8.2015 was approved by the State Government. On 7.9.2015 an undated representation of petitioner was forwarded to the State Government which was duly considered. The petitioner also appeared before the Advisory Board (Detention), Lucknow on 30.9.2015 and full opportunity of hearing was provided by the Board. The detention order dated 28.8.2015 was confirmed by the State Government on 16.10.2015 for a period of 12 months and all orders pertaining to detention passed by the District Magistrate himself as well as Advisory Board and State Government were communicated to the petitioner through Jail Superintendent, Gautambudh Nagar almost on the same day. 15. It is true that the personal liberty is more cherished than all other freedoms taken together. Detention without trial is a serious matter and the order of detention must be justified by the detaining authority, whenever human liberty is in peril and justice is threatened, the citizen should receive the fullest protection from the Court within the four corners of Article 21 of the Constitution benignantly stretched and all the safeguards of the NSA liberally interpreted, of course, within the legitimate limit. This is one aspect of the matter when we view the rights of individual who is in our focus. The liberties and the privileges which an individual enjoys are, however, subject to the larger interest of the society. Though the liberty of an individual under our Constitution is very sacrosanct and authorities concerned have a constitutional duty to respect the same, the concept of individual liberty should not be so stretched to such unreasonable extent to force the detaining authority to sacrifice the National Interest or the ‘public order’. If the detaining authority feels satisfied in passing the detention order, the facts which impelled him to take such a drastic step cannot be sifted or probed by this Court since it has a limited role in the matter of examining validity or otherwise of the detention order. This Court does not sit in appeal over the detention order and it is not for this Court to go into and assess probative value of evidence available to the detaining authority. This Court does not sit in appeal over the detention order and it is not for this Court to go into and assess probative value of evidence available to the detaining authority. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ahmad Nassar v. State of Tamilandu, AIR 1999 SC 3897 , has taken view that when one’s liberty is to be curtailed on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority with area of interference by the Court being limited, then within this limitation Court must see in the privileged areas that the detaining authority does not stretch illegitimately in exercise of its jurisdiction. Though the jurisdiction of the Court in the matter is limited with regard to the scanning of the facts which led to the satisfaction of the detaining authority it cannot be asserted or argued that the detention order is beyond the pale of scrutiny. 16. In the background of the aforesaid view expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court as economic order is the basic need of any organized and civilized society and circulation of counterfeit currency is having an increasingly deleterious effect on the national economy and thereby a serious effect on security of the State. Therefore, as in span of three years the petitioner was arrested in two cases pertaining to offence of similar nature, therefore, the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that the petitioner would involve in supply of counterfeit currency after release based on material placed before him cannot be said to be a satisfaction based on surmise. We have no hesitation, in our mind, that here it is a case in which on the basis of facts and circumstances stated above and entire material placed before the District Magistrate, he could reasonably be satisfied that unless the petitioner is detained, the petitioner may continue the activity of circulating the counterfeit currency in the area and thereby eroding public faith in governance by State and financial institutions. One cannot escape to other conclusion that the activities of the petitioner were highly prejudicial to the State and maintenance of ‘public order’ and, therefore, his detention, in the circumstances, was justified because possession of counterfeit currency has no other purpose unless the counterfeit currency is put in circulation, as the same has no face value till it is in possession of an individual. The animus of possessing counterfeit currency is certainly with motive to exchange the same. 17. The animus of possessing counterfeit currency is certainly with motive to exchange the same. 17. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was never supplied copy of any report of inspector, incharge of Police Station-Ecotec-III but perusal of annexures to the writ petition transpires that District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar, passing the detention order supplied the report of Station House Officer as well as all papers to the petitioner through Jail Superintendent on the same day of passing of impugned order and in counter-affidavit the District Magistrate has stated that undated representation of petitioner was received in office on 7.9.2015. The aforesaid representation was processed and sent to the Government of India, New Delhi and to the State Government, U.P., Lucknow on 29.9.2015. In view of above, the petitioner’s right to make the representation against the order of detention being fundamental right finds safeguard from furnishing of the copies of the relevant annexures alongwith detention order through Jail Superintendent to the petitioner. 18. No other argument is pressed before us. 19. In the result, the petitioner is not successful in challenging the detention order on any count whatsoever. His detention is clearly in accordance with procedure as established by law. The writ petition has no merit, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ———————