Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 858 (MP)

Suraj Jain v. State of M. P.

2020-09-05

S.C.SHARMA, SHAILENDRA SHUKLA

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court, a resident of Ujjain and Proprietor of M/s. Siddhi Dugdh Dairy, is engaged in retail business of Milk, Mawa, Ghee and Paneer. A raid was conducted on 24.7.2019 by respondent No.5 – Food Safety Officer and samples were drawn. In respect of samples, a report dated 14.08.2019 was served to the petitioner on 16.8.2019 in which two samples of Mawa were substandard and one sample of Vanaspati was adulterated. 2. An offence was registered against the petitioner under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with sections 50, 51 and 58 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the petitioner immediately submitted an application before the Food and Drugs Administration Department in Form No.08, section 46(4) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 to verify the Sample Report from the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore. 3. The petitioner applied for grant of bail in respect of FIR No. 0226/2019 and anticipatory bail was granted by this Court vide order dated 4.10.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 41530/2019. The petitioner has categorically stated in the present writ petition that he is residing in his house after the bail was granted to him on 4.10.2019 peacefully, however, by way of news paper it was brought to his notice that an order has been passed under the National Security Act, 1980 dated 30.9.2019. 4. The respondents have also stated that the order passed under the National Security Act, 1980 has been approved by the State Government on 21.10.2019. Though various grounds have been raised in the present writ petition, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the order under the National Security Act, 1980 has not been confirmed by the State Government within “twelve days” and the petitioner is still residing in his house peacefully. No steps has been taken by the State Government for arresting him nor procedure as provided under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been initiated. 5. This Court has categorically asked a specific question to the learned Deputy Advocate General, whether the order under the National Security Act, 1980 has been confirmed by the State Government within “twelve days” or not? She has categorically stated that the order has not been confirmed within “twelve days” nor within “fifteen days”. 5. This Court has categorically asked a specific question to the learned Deputy Advocate General, whether the order under the National Security Act, 1980 has been confirmed by the State Government within “twelve days” or not? She has categorically stated that the order has not been confirmed within “twelve days” nor within “fifteen days”. Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 reads as under:- “3.Power to make orders detaining certain persons.– (1) The Central Government or the State Government may, – (a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (b) if satisfied with respect to any foreigner that with a view to regulating his continued presence in India or with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from India, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. Explanation.– For the purposes of this sub-section, "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community" does not include "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community" as defined in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (7 of 1980), and accordingly, no order of detention shall be made under this Act on any ground on which an order of detention may be made under that Act. (3) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct, that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (2), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section: Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance, exceed three months, but the State Government may, if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time. (4) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government: Provided that where under section 8 the grounds of detention are communicated by the officer making the order after five days but not later than ten days from the date of detention, this sub-section shall apply subject to the modification that, for the words "twelve days", the words "fifteen days" shall be substituted. (5) When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this section, the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order.” 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid statutory provisions of law, as the order of detention was not confirmed within by the State Government within “twelve days” as provided under section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, the order does not remain in force any longer and is accordingly quashed and the writ petition stands allowed.