Hon. Yogesh Chandra Gupta, J.
Heard Sri Arvind Mishra, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra Assistant Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri Shachi Kant Mishra Advocate on behalf of Union of India respondent no. 1.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The habeas corpus petition is taken up for final hearing.
The instant habeas corpus petition is preferred challenging the detention order of the petitioner Aftab Quressy dated 16.1.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut. The petitioner along with two other co-accused namely Mohd Rafiq and Sadab Quressy were apprehended on 23.10.2009 at 2.30 P.M. by S.I. Rajesh Verma, SOG, District Meerut on receiving information that the accused are involved in dealing with fake currency notes. At the time of his arrest, 30 notes of denomination of Rs. 500/- each serial numbers; 6AH 542660 to 542664 5 notes, 6AH 543141 to 543142 2 notes, 6AH 543144 to 543151 8 notes, 6AH 543155 one note, 6AH 543162 to 543172 11 notes, 6AH 543178 to 543179 2 notes, 6AH 543188, total amount of Rs. 15,000/- was recovered from him. All thirty notes recovered were counterfeit, use of these notes in the market would adversely effect the nation's economy as well as general public will be put to loss and they will have to suffer on account of these fake currency notes which would be circulated in the market. It was further alleged that these notes were brought from Nepal and used in India. A First Information Report at case crime No. 670 of 2009 was registered under Sections 420, 489A, 489B and 489C I.P.C. and case crime No. 671 of 2009, under Section 25 Arms Act against accused Shadab Quressy.
An analysis of the notes was conducted in the Press and Devas Madhya Pradesh and the test report confirmed it to be fake currency notes.
A police report was preferred to the District Magistrate along with all the documents and detaining authority after perusal of the entire documents and subsequent to a subjective satisfaction has passed an order of preventive detention on 16.1.2010 since he was of the view that there was a likelihood of the detenu of repeating the crime if he is set free.
The petitioner's counsel has challenged the detention order on a number of grounds.
The first ground is that the co-accused Shadab Quressy whose case is identical to that of petitioner and was also detained under the National Security Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) by the District Magistrate, has been released and the detention order was revoked by the Advisory Committee. At the time of his arrest, he was found to be in possession of Rs. 50,000/- and, thus it is evident that the Advisory Board has used different yardstick while considering the case of the petitioner.
The second argument is that the detention order of the petitioner was confirmed at the time when the order of the co-accused stood already revoked. This fact was completely overlooked. In the circumstances, when the order was available on the date of confirmation of the detention order of the petitioner, it is apparent that the same was not taken notice by the Advisory Board and that is why he continues to be in detention.
The next argument is that the representation of the petitioner was not considered independently. It was a biased opinion of the Advisory Board without attributing any reason. The last argument is that the District Magistrate was led away by opinion of the report submitted by the police officials. He has not exercised an independent subjective satisfaction and the detention order stands vitiated and liable to be quashed.
Counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Prem Shanker, Under Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow on behalf of respondent no. 2. The averments in paragraphs 18, 19(p), 21 and 26 have been replied in paragraph 3 wherein the assertion is that the petitioner's representation dated 28.1.2010 was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Meerut along with parawise comments on the very next day i.e. 29.1.2010 which was received in the concerned section of the State Government on 1.2.2010. Copies of the representation and comments were sent to the Advisory Board by the State Government vide letter dated 2.2.2010 as well as to the Central Government by speed post. The concerned section of the State Government examined the representation and submitted a detailed note on 2.2.2010. The deponent and Joint Secretary examined it on 3.2.2010. The Special Secretary and Secretary examined it on 4.2.2010 and submitted it to the higher authorities for final orders. The State Government rejected the representation on 4.2.2010 itself. The rejection of the representation was communicated to the petitioner through district authorities by the State Government Radiogram dated 5.2.2010. The State Government approved the order of detention on 21.1.2010 that is within 12 days of the date of the detention order as required under Section 3(4) of the Act. The approval of the detention order was communicated to the petitioner through district authorities by means of Radiogram and letter dated 22.1.2010.
It is also asserted in this very affidavit that the Advisory Board vide letter dated 29.1.2010 informed the State Government that the case of the petitioner will be taken up for hearing on 4.2.2010 and directed that the petitioner be informed that if he desired to attend the hearing before the Advisory Board along with his next friend, he could do so and be allowed to take his next friend along with him if he had so requested. After receiving the communication through Radiogram, the petitioner was present in person. The representation was pressed in his presence. U.P. Advisory Board informed the confirmation of the detention order vide letter dated 17.2.2010. The State Government once again examined the entire case of the petitioner along with opinion of the Advisory Board and took a decision to confirm the detention order and placed the petitioner under detention for a period of 12 months. In the circumstances, the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner have been appropriately replied by the State Government.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Shakeel Wahid Ahmed Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1983 Supreme Court, 541 in support of his argument that the detention order of the co-accused was not brought before the Advisory Board which led to great prejudice to the case of the petitioner.
The next decision relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is Jayanarayan Sukul Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 Supreme Court, 675 which deals with Sections 7 and 10 of Preventive Detention Act, 1950. It is ruled that appropriate Government must itself expeditiously exercise judgment thereon before forwarding it to the Advisory Board.
The Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Murari Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court, 1835 held that reasonable apprehension as to their future conduct must depend on the relevant facts and circumstances which differ from individual to individual. The detaining authority can not be compelled to take a uniform decision in this regard only on the ground that the persons concerned are all joined together as accused in a criminal case. The Apex Court felt that there was no merit in the grievance of the petitioner on the ground of discrimination.
Sri Sudhir Mehrotra has also cited a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chandresh Paswan Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (38) ACC, 721. The Full Bench ruled that application of the principle of parity in arriving the satisfaction contemplated by Section 3 of the Act will necessarily import in it objectively which is foreign and runs counter to the scheme of section. The satisfaction of the appropriate Government for ordering detention of each person, by its nature, has to vary on account of variance in perception of nature and extent of the danger for prevention whereof the Act has been enacted. The expression 'may confirm' used in sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act impliedly confers on the appropriate Government the option and discretion not to confirm the detention order. It is for the appropriate Government, and no body else, to assess and to be subjectively satisfied whether for achieving the object of the Act it is imperative to order preventive detention of a person. Such assessment and subjective satisfaction for exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act has to be founded on various diverse and variable factors which may vary in content, intent, nature and extent qua each person. The Full Bench held that variance and dissimilarity of such factors constituting substratum of subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government excludes applicability of the principle of parity.
In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any merit in the instant habeas corpus petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
Dt/-8.10.2010.
Rmk.