9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entrusted custody of his house to the said Vishnu Narain Awasthi. At 11.00 in the night some persons informed the complainant that his brother had been shot by certain persons and when the complainant, reached the spot he found Vishnu Narain Awasthi lying in a pool of blood and he had already died. It is alleged that on the basis of the F.I.R. on 4th June, 1985 crime No. 101 of 1985 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Ghazipur Police Station Against unknown accused, the names of the detenus, it is said figured during investigation and the charge-sheet has been submitted in the concerned court which is pending trial. (2) That on 13th June, 1985 one Baldeo Prasad Awashti, resident of Ismailganj, Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow that his son Ram Kumar and his son-in-law, Nand Kishore had gone to meet an accused in the District Jail where the complainant also reached at about 1.30 p.m. but they could not meet the accused. Ram Kumar and Nand Kishore proceeded towards home on one rickshaw while the other rickshaw was being occupied by the complainant. When they reached a little distance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s challenged in two writ petitions filed before the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of writ of habeas corpus for producing the body of the respondent along with other respondent detenus before the Court and for quashing of the order of detention. In the said order of detention it has also been stated that the District Magistrate after considering the fact that since the two detunes/petitioners had filed applications for bail which were pending before the Court and for which the detenus were likely to be released on bail, passed the impugned order of detention after being subjectively satisfied that the petitioners on their release from jail will participate in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention were duly served on the detenus mentioning therein that the detenus may make representation to the State Government against the said order of detention and the same would be placed before the Advisory Board before whom the detenus would be afforded opportunity of personal hearing. 4. The petitioners along with other detenus contended in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r in as much as the reach and effect and the potentiality of the said incidents did not disturb the even tempo of the life of the community, as it did not create any terror and panic in the locality. These incidents are confined to particular persons. It has also been held that relevant materials such as the application of the three under-trials as well as the statement in the bail application of the detenus referring to the statement of the under-trials that the detenus had been implicated falsely were not placed before the detaining authority and as such the order of detention passed by the detaining authority was invalid and bad in as much as there was no proper subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority due to non-consideration of the application of the co-accused and the police report. The order of detention was therefore, quashed by the High Court. 6. Against this order the instant appeal has been filed on special leave. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, appellant did not question before us the validity and legality of the finding of the High Court in so far as it relates to the non-supply of the relevant and vital materials, that is, the statemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court is quite in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Asha Devi v. K. Shivraj 1979CriLJ203 and Gurdip Singh v. Union of India AIR 1981 (SO 362. 7. The High Court has found that the incidents mentioned in ground Nos. 1 and 2 are confined to law and order problem and not public order in as much as these incidents concerned particular individuals and do not create any terror or panic in the locality affecting the even tempo of the life of the community. This Court in the case of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1966CriLJ608 has observed:- The contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order it must affect the community or the public at large. There are three concepts according to the learned Judge (Hidayatullah, J) i.e. "law and order", "Public order" and "security of the State". It has been observed that to appreciate the scope and extent of each of them one should imagine three concentric circles. The largest of them represented law and order, next represented public order and the smallest represented the security of the State. An act might affect law and order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances. 10. In the case of Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration 1982CriLJ1191 to which one of us was a party, this Court while dealing with the distinction between "Public order" and law and order" observed that: The true distinction between the areas of 'public order' and law and order' lies not in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. The distinction between the two concepts of law and order' and 'public order' is a find one but this does not mean that there can be no overlapping. Acts similar in nature but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only and therefore touch the problem of law and order. The Act by itself therefore is not determinant of its own gravity. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 11. Considering all these decisions we have held in the case of Gulab Mehra v. State of U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o disturb public tranquility and it affects the even tempo of the life of the people in the locality where the incident is alleged to have occurred. therefore, the finding of the High Court with regard to this incident that it did not disturb in any way the public order is not legal and valid. 13. As regards the incident referred to in ground No. 3, that is, the complaint regarding the firing by Kamal Kishore Saini, the detenu on Vijay Pratap Singh, an under-trial prisoner, in the court compound while he was being taken back from the court by the complainant and other policemen on duty, undoubtedly affects public order in as much as the firing of shot in the court compound created panic and terror in the minds of persons present there and thus it affects the even tempo of the life of the community in that place. This, incident certainly affects, public order and not merely law and order in as much as the reach, affect and potentiality of the act purports to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community i.e. the people of that area. 14. The impugned order of detention was clamped on 28th November, 1985 and the period of one year as provided in Section 13 of the National Secu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
