# Nanha Pahalwan v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 51
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-11-20
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nanha-pahalwan-v-union-of-india-and-others-39733
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2All] Nanha Pahalwan V. Union of India and others

with Section I.P.C. of appellants Lal
Mohammad and Imamuddin as well as
their conviction and sentence of 2 years
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
300/- each under Section 324 I.P.C. read
with Section 34 I.P.C. are set aside. Their
conviction under section 323 I.P.C. read
with section 34 I.P.C. is maintained.
However the sentence is reduced to the
period already undergone and a fine of
Rs/ 500/- each. In default of payment of
fine each of these appellants shall undergo
R.I. for a period of three months.

42. The appeal is accordingly partly
allowed. All the appellants are on bail.
Appellants
Sartaj
Mohammad
and
Vakilwa shall surrender to their bail
bonds to serve out their respective
sentences as imposed by this Court. On
their doing so their bail bonds shall stand
cancelled. In case they do not comply
with this order within fifteen days. The
trial
Court
shall
take
prompt
and
appropriate steps for their arrest and shall
put them back in jail for serving out their
respective sentences as modified by this
Court. Appellant Lal Mohammad and
Imamuddin @ Chottan are allowed one
month's time to deposit the fine imposed
on them, failing which the trial Court
shall take appropriate steps against them
in accordance with law.

43. Compliance report shall be sent
to this Court within two months.

Partly Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 2 %+$77 -
7+( +21·%/( 2 %+$77 -

+DEHDV &DUSXV 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

1DQKD 3DKDOZDQ
«3HWLWLRQHU ,Q -DLO
9HUVXV
8QLRQ RI ,QGLD RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL . 6KDKL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
$*$
6&
6KUL 60 0LVUD

1DWLRQDO
6HFXULW\
$FW
±
'LVWLQFWLRQ
EHWZHHQ /DZ DQG 2UGHU DQG SXEOLF RUGHU
± 'HWHQWLRQ 2UGHU ± JURXQG RI EUHDFK RI
ODZ DQG RUGHU ±QRW WKH 3XEOLF 2UGHU ± ,W
LV IRU WKH &RXUW WR GHFLGH RQ LWV RZQ DQG
QRW RQ WKH EDVLV RI RUGHU SDVVHG E\ WKH
DXWKRULWLHV
+HOG ± 3DUD
7KH GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ ODZ DQG RUGHU
DQG SXEOLF RUGHU LV ZDOO NQRZQ DV LW KDV
EHHQ GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH ODUJH QXPEHU RI
FDVHV GHFLGHG E\ WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW DQG
WKLV
&RXUW
,W
LV
ZHOO VHWWOHG WKDW D
GHWHQWLRQ RUGHU FDQ EH SDVVHG QRW IRU
EUHDFK RI ODZ DQG RUGHU EXW IRU WKH
EUHDFK RI SXEOLF RUGHU YLGH 6WDWH RI 83
YV +DUL 6KDQNDU 7LZDUL $,5 6&
 ,Q WKH SUHVHQW FDVH ZH DUH RI WKH
RSLQLRQ WKDW WKHUH ZDV EUHDFK RI ODZ DQG
RUGHU EXW QRW RI SXEOLF RUGHU 1R GRXEW
WKH JURXQGV RI GHWHQWLRQ PHQWLRQV WKDW
SXEOLF RUGHU ZDV EUHDFKHG EXW ZH KDYH
QRW WR JR PHUHO\ E\ ZKDW WKH DXWKRULWLHV
VD\
RWKHUZLVH
LQ
HYHU\
FDVH
WKH
DXWKRULWLHV
FDQ
VD\
WKDW
WKHUH
ZDV
EUHDFK RI SXEOLF RUGHU DQG WKDW ZLOO EH
WKH HQG RI WKH PDWWHU 7KH &RXUW KDV WR
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
PDNH
LWV
RZQ
GHWHUPLQDWLRQ
DV
WR
ZKHWKHU
WKHUH
ZDV
EUHDFK
RI
SXEOLF
RUGHU
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
$,5 6HFWLRQ

By the Court

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner
and learned Government Counsel.

2. The petitioner is challenging the
impugned
detention
order
dated
20.11.2000 under the N.S.A. (Annexure 3
to the writ petition). Several arguments
have been raised before us but in our
opinion one argument is itself sufficient
for this petition to succeed, that is, that it
is a case of breach of law and order and
not public order. A perusal of the grounds
of detention (Annexure 4 to the petition)
shows that the dead body of one Pintoo
was found and a case under Section 302
was registered. It is very significant that
the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R.
(copy of which is Annexured). The
distinction between law and order and
public order is well known as it has been
discussed in a large number of cased
decided by the Supreme Court and this
Court. It is well settled that a detention
order can be passed not for breach of law
and order but for the breach of public
order vide State of U.P. vs. Hari Shankar
Tiwari A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 998. In the
present case we are of the opinion that
there was breach of law and order but not
of public order. No doubt the grounds of
detention mentions that public order was
breached, but we have not to go merely
by what the authorities say, otherwise in
every case the authorities can say that
there was breach of public order and that
will be the end of the matter. The court
has to make its own determination as to
whether there was breach of public order.
3. In view of the above the petition
is allowed. The impugned order dated
20.11.2000 is quashed. The petitioner
shall be released forthwith unless he is
required
in
some
other
preventive
detention or criminal case.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -
7+( +21·%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
*D\D 3UDVDG 8SDGK\D\
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 6DQMD\ .XPDU
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 6. 3DQGH\
0U 5* 3DGLD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

±
$FFHSWDQFH RI 7HQGHU IRU FROOHFWLRQ RI
7ROO 7D[ ± JUDQW RI 7HQGHU LQ IDYRXU RI
5HVSRQGHQW QR ± DIWHU H[SLU\ RI WKH
SHULRG WKH VHFXULW\ ZLWKGUDZQ ± WKH RIIHU
JLYHQ E\ WKH 5HVSRQGHQW QR FDPH WR
DQ
HQG
±
DXWKRULWLHV
ZURQJO\
JLYHQ
UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ
LQ
IDYRXU
RI
5HVSRQGHQW QR ± KHOG LOOHJDO ± GLUHFWLRQ
LVVXHG IRU IUHVK DGYHUWLVHPHQW DQG WR
SURFHHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK ODZ +HOG ±
3DUD 7KH IDFWV RI WKH FDVH LQ KDQG
FOHDUO\ VKRZ WKDW WKH DXWKRULWLHV RI WKH
6WDWH KDYH JRQH RXW RI WKHLU ZD\ WR KHOS
UHVSRQGHQW QR LQ WKH PDWWHU DQG KDYH
DZDUGHG FRQWUDFW WR KLP LQ D ZKROO\
LOOHJDO
PDQQHU
7KH
RUGHU
RI
WKH