9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 120B IPC and the said case is pending trial before the court. Subsequently another case was registered against the detenu during 2007 in Central Crime Branch, Chennai City X Crime No. 364/2007 under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 read with 471 and 120B IPC for the offence of land grabbing and his activities are said to have been adverse to the interest of the land owners and prospective buyers. The modus operandi of the detenu in both the cases is land grabbing in a clandestine manner. The detaining authority had considered the said aspect and came to the conclusion that in case the detenu is let out on bail he would again indulge in similar type of offences and, therefore, it is imperative to detain him. The order of detention came to be passed keeping in mind the welfare of public who are owning lands as well as the prospective buyers. 5. It may be pertinent to mention that a number of bail applications of the detenu were dismissed and he was already in jail on 28.08.2007 when the detention order was served on him. 6. The detenu made a representation on 14.9.2007 to the Secretary and the Advisory Board seeking revocation of the detention order, which was rejected on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubjective satisfaction clamped the above order of detention on the basis of an appraisal of the material placed by the sponsoring authority. 13. Mr. Iyer further submitted that the detention order does not constitute an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the detenu under Articles 19, 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Iyer contended that the detenu is a slum grabber and involved in crime No. 70/2006 under Sections 420, 465, 468 read with 471 and 120B IPC and crime No. 364/2007 under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 read with 471 and 120B IPC and that, keeping in mind the seriousness of the offence of land grabbing, the detaining authority was justified in passing the detention order. 14. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and carefully gone through the record of the case. 15. This Court on several occasions examined the concepts of law and order and public Order . Immediately after the Constitution came into force, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Brij Bhushan and Anr. v. The State of Delhi (1950) SCR 605 dealt with a case pertaining to public order. The court observed that public order may well be para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are. A District Magistrate is entitled to take action under Rule 30(l)(b) to prevent subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances. It will thus appear that just as public order in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting security of State , law and order also comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting public order . One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State.... 19. In Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 1970 CriLJ 1136, Hidayatullah, J. again had an occasion to deal with the question of public order and law and order . In this judgment, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t requirement of public order. He disturbs the society and the community. His act makes all the women apprehensive of their honour and he can be said to be causing disturbance of public order and not merely committing individual actions which may be taken note of by the criminal prosecution agencies. It means therefore that the question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society.... 20. The concept of `public order' and `law and order' has been dealt with in the case of Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal 1970 CriLJ 852. In this case, the Court had relied on the important work of Dr. Allen on `Legal Duties' and spelled out the distinction between `public' and `private' crimes in the realm of jurisprudence. In considering the material elements of crime, the historic tests which each community applies are intrinsic wrongfulness and social expediency which are the two most important factors which have led to the designation of certain conduct as criminal. Dr. Allen has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be sufficient to cope with them. 23. In Kuso Sah v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1975 CriLJ 543, this Court had also considered the issue of public order . The court observed thus: These acts may raise problems of law and order but we find it impossible to see their impact on public order. The two concepts have well defined contours, it being well established that stray and unorganised crimes of theft and assault are not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life. Infractions of law are bound in some measure to lead to disorder but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder.... 24. This Court in another important case Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and Ors. 1982 CriLJ 1191 clearly spelled out a distinction between `law and order' and `public order'. In this case, the court observed as under: 13. 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 fine one but this does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary to the well settled principles indicated by this Court in a series of cases relating to preventive detention. The impugned order, therefore, has to be quashed. 27. Mr. Ahmadi, the learned Counsel further placed reliance on Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar and Ors. 1986 CriLJ 1959. In this case, the court observed as follows: 7. It is well settled in our constitutional framework that the power of directing preventive detention given to the appropriate authorities must be exercised in exceptional cases as contemplated by the various provisions of the different statutes dealing with preventive detention and should be used with great deal of circumspection. There must be awareness of the facts necessitating preventive custody of a person for social defence. If a man is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being released, the power of preventive detention should not be exercised. In the instant case when the actual order of detention was served upon the detenu, the detenu was in jail. There is no indication that this factor or the question that the said detenu might be released or that there was such a possibility of his release, wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting public order from that concerning law and order . The question to ask is: Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed? This question has to be faced in every case on its facts. 29. In R. Kalavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 6 SCC14, this Court while dealing with the case affecting the public order observed that even a single act which has the propensity of affecting the even tempo of life and public tranquillity would be sufficient for detention. 30. Mr. Ahmadi, the learned Counsel for the detenu placed reliance on T.V. Sravanan alias S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi v. State through Secretary and Anr. 2006 CriLJ 1619. In this case the court observed that when the detenu was already in custody, there was no imminent possibility of his being released. In that event it would not be appropriate to pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
