# Neeraj v. Union Of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 874
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-10
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Shamsher Bahadur Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeraj-v-union-of-india-ors-44280
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 874
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.- 65648 Of 2015

Neeraj ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Avinash Chandra Srivastava, Anay Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Respondents:
G.A., A.S.G.I., J.K. Mishra, Jitendra Prasad Mishra

Preventive Detention -- National Security Act, 1980 -- Section 3 -- Detention Order on Ground
of Public Order/Security of State -- Petitioner arrested with counterfeit currency of Rs. 2,94,000/- along
with two associates and chargesheeted under Sections 489B/489C IPC -- Earlier also involved in similar Crime
No. 592 of 2012 concerning circulation of counterfeit currency worth Rs. 20,50,000/- -- Detaining authority
apprehending release on bail and continuation of activities of transportation and supply of counterfeit currency
-- Held: Circulation of counterfeit currency has a deleterious effect on national economy and constitutes a
serious threat to security of the State and public order -- Involvement in two similar offences within three
years justified subjective satisfaction of District Magistrate -- Detention not illegal merely because grounded
on prevention of prejudicial activity to public order/security of State. (Paras 10 & 16)

Preventive Detention -- Mutual Exclusivity of Grounds -- Subjective Satisfaction -- Judicial
Review -- Contention that grounds under Section 3 NSA (security of State, public order, essential supplies)
are mutually exclusive and detaining authority must specify precise ground -- Held: Facts of cases relied upon
by petitioner (Rajesh Gulati, Fazal Ghosi, Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi) were of a different nature from present
case -- Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority, though not open to appellate scrutiny, must be based
on pertinent material -- Court's role limited to examining whether detaining authority stretched its jurisdiction
illegitimately, and not to reassess probative value of material. (Paras 12, 13 & 15)

Preventive Detention -- Procedural Safeguards -- Right to Make Representation -- Supply of
Documents -- Contention that petitioner was not supplied copy of report of Station House Officer -- Report
and all relevant papers were supplied to petitioner through Jail Superintendent on the same day as the
detention order -- Representation was duly processed and forwarded to State and Central Government --
Petitioner also afforded hearing before Advisory Board -- No violation of petitioner's fundamental right to
make representation. (Para 17)
Writ Petition dismissed.

Case Law Discussed
1. Sunita Kumari Kashyap vs. State of Bihar and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 2011
8 All. Neeraj Vs Union Of India & Ors.
875
2. Rajesh Gulati vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another, Appeal (Criminal) No. 866 of 2002

3. Fazal Ghosi, Wahid, Ayaz Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and Others, Appeal (Cri.) Nos. 301 &
302 of 1986

4. Smt. Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi vs. State of Manipur and Others, Appeal (Cri.) No. 1849 of 2010

5. Ahmad Nassar vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1999 SC 3897

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra
Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the
State and perused the materiel available on record.

2. This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a
writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to set at liberty
forthwith, the petitioner-Neeraj, who is detained in District Jail, Gautambudh Nagar, as per order
dated 28.08.2015passed by the District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar (respondent no.3) in
exercise of power under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the
'NSA') and also to quash the above order.

3. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner-Neeraj was arrested by the
police of P.S.-Ecotec-III, Gautambudh Nagar along with his two associates namely Raju @ Abid
and Ajay Singh while going on a motorcycle and scooty on 16.07.2015 and counterfeit currency of
Rs. 2,94,000/- in total were recovered from their possession. All the three accused persons belongs
to District Mainpuri, U.P., Katihar, Bihar and Farrukhabad, U.P. respectively but at the time of
arrest petitioner-Neeraj and co-accused Ajay Singh were residing at Sector 5, Gurgaon in front of
S.B.R. School and Raju @ Abid was found residing at Sector 49, NOIDA. The police registered a
case at Crime No. 240 of 2015, under Section 489B/489C IPC. The investigation was in progress
on the date of detention order dated 28.08.2015.

4. The background of the impugned order is that the Station House Officer, P.S.-Ecotec-III,
Gautambudh Nagar submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Gautambudh Nagar through
proper channel on 19.08.2015 stating therein that the petitioner is trying to bail out himself through
his relatives. Hearing of bail application has been fixed on 31.08.2015 and there is every possibility
of his release. The activities of accused Neeraj in possessing counterfeit currency and its supply in
the area National Capital Region will be a threat to the security of the State and maintenance of
public order. The Circle Officer, Greater NOIDA- 3, Gautambudh Nagar forwarded above report on
20.08.2015 to Senior Superintendent of Police through S.P. (Rural), Gautambudh Nagar.

5. The District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar took cognizance of the matter and on
satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner would grossly affect the security of State and
maintenance of the public order as there will be every possibility of petitioner being engaged in
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

activities of transportation and supply of counterfeit currency in the area after released on bail,
passed the detention order of the petitioner on 28.08.2015, which was subsequently confirmed by
the State Government by order dated 16.10.2015.

6. With this backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eye of law as no such incident took place, wherein the petitioner's
involvement was found prejudicial to the security to the State or maintenance of the public order or
maintenance of supply and services essential to the community.

7. Now, we are come to the moot controversy raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
with reference to the provision of Section 3 of NSA. It is pointed out that under the said provision,
an order with respect to any person for detention may be passed with a view to preventing him from
acting, in any manner, prejudicial;

(i) to the Security of the State;

(ii) to the maintenance of the public order;

(iii) to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that above three categories are mutually
exclusive and detaining authority has to be satisfied on the fact as to under which of three grounds
mentioned above, a person is required to be detained. He further submits that petitioner has been
falsely implicated in Crime No.240 of 2015, under Section 489B and 489C IPC by Police EcotecIII, Gautambudh Nagar and nothing was recovered from his possession. He further pointed out that
in the year 2012 on the basis of statement of co-accused, petitioner's name surfaced in Crime No.
592 of 2012, under Sections 489B and 489C IPC, P.S. Soorajpur, District Gautambudh Nagar,
wherein petitioner was released on bail. In above case also petitioner was falsely implicated.

9. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that in Case Crime No. 592 of 2012 against
11 accused persons, the first information report was registered and on tips of informant that some
persons are involved in transportation and supply of counterfeit currency from Malda, West Bengal
to National Capital Region, a Special Task Force Team conducted arrest and an Innova Car without
papers and Rs.20,50,000/- counterfeit currency were recovered from the possession of 6 accused
persons who were arrested on the spot. During investigation, the name of petitioner surfaced in
conspiracy and commission of offence and Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against
petitioner, his real brother Sonu and his mother Smt. Kamla Aunty along with others. Accused
named in the first information report were also chargesheeted and trial is pending. Whether the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in both cases is matter to be considered and decided during
the trial after following due procedure of law. Till date of detention order, there was no finding in
favour of accused. Trial in both cases is pending.
8 All. Neeraj Vs Union Of India & Ors.
877
10. Economic de-establishing is deadly poison for health and existence of a developing
country. Certainly, economic disorder, in contradiction to the criminal activities backed by use of
force, results in serious prejudice to 'public order'. Therefore, the detention will not be illegal
merely because order of the detention is passed only to prevent the detenu from acting prejudicially
to the maintenance of 'public order' or the security of State.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in Case Crime No.592 of 2012,
the petitioner was granted bail 21.04.2014 and the report of Station House Officer of Police StationEcotec-III, Gautambudh Nagar dated 19.08.2015 endorsed by Circle Officer, Superintendent of
Police (Rural) and Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautambudh Nagar is just a malafide exercise
to detain the petitioner under 'NSA'. There was no such material before the District Magistrate to
accord his subjective satisfaction. The report submitted by Station House Officer and endorsed by
Superior Officer does not disclose any activities relating to supply of counterfeit currency to some
others till imposition of detention order. The investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of
any witnesses to whom counterfeit currency have been supplied or handed by the petitioner.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Rajesh Gulati vs.
Govt. of N.C.T. Of Delhi and another passed in Appeal (Criminal) No. 866 of 2002 dated
29.08.2002, Fazal Ghosi, Wahid, Ayaz Ahmadand Riaz Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others
passed in Appeal (Cri.) Nos. 301 and 302 of 1986 on 29.06.1987 and Smt. Pebam Ningol Mikoi
Devi vs. state of Manipur and others passed in Appeal (Cri.) No. 1849 of 2010 decided on
14.09.2010, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that power of detention under the
NSA can be exercised only with a view to preventing a person from acting in a manner which may
be prejudicial any of the considerations set forth in Section 3 of NSA and thereby, preventive
detention is not intended as a punitive measure, as a curtailment of liberty by way of punishment
for an offence already committed and punishable under Common Criminal Law of Nation or State.
No doubt the satisfaction of the District Magistrate making the detention order is subjective in
nature, but, even subjective satisfaction, must be based upon some pertinent material.

13. In the light of above law as propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court now the case of present
petitioner has to be seen and assessed. The nature of offences in aforesaid three decisions were
altogether different from the nature of offences against the petitioner under common criminal law.

14. On behalf of respondent no.3, a counter affidavit dated 29.01.2016 sworn by Sri N.P.
Singh, District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar is on record. From perusal of the aforesaid counter
affidavit, it transpires that police thoroughly investigated the case of Crime no. 240 of 2015 and
chargesheet has already been submitted. The District Magistrate further stated that detention order
dated 28.08.2015 was approved by the State Government. On 07.09.2015 an undated representation
of petitioner was forwarded to the State Government which was duly considered. The petitioner
also appeared before the Advisory Board (Detention), Lucknow on 30.09.2015 and full opportunity
of hearing was provided by the Board. The detention order dated 28.08.2015 was confirmed by the
State Government on 16.10.2015 for a period of 12 months and all orders pertaining to detention
passed by the District Magistrate himself as well as Advisory Board and State Government were
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

communicated to the petitioner through Jail Superintendent, Gautambudh Nagar almost on the
same day.

15. It is true that the personal liberty is more cherished than all other freedoms taken
together. Detention without trial is a serious matter and the order of detention must be justified by
the detaining authority, whenever human liberty is in peril and justice is threatened, the citizen
should receive the fullest protection from the Court within the four corners of Article 21 of the
Constitution benignantly stretched and all the safeguards of the NSA liberally interpreted, of
course, within the legitimate limit. This is one aspect of the matter when we view the rights of
individual who is in our focus. The liberties and the privileges which an individual enjoys are,
however, subject to the larger interest of the society. Though the liberty of an individual under our
Constitution is very sacrosanct and authorities concerned have a constitutional duty to respect the
same, the concept of individual liberty should not be so stretched to such unreasonable extent to
force the detaining authority to sacrifice the National Interest or the 'public order'. If the detaining
authority feels satisfied in passing the detention order, the facts which impelled him to take such a
drastic step cannot be sifted or probed by this Court since it has a limited role in the matter of
examining validity or otherwise of the detention order. This Court does not sit in appeal over the
detention order and it is not for this Court to go into and assess probative value of evidence
available to the detaining authority. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ahmad Nassar vs. State of
Tamilandu reported in AIR 1999 SC 3897 has taken view that when one's liberty is to be
curtailed on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority with area of interference by the
Court being limited, then within this limitation Court must see in the privileged areas that the
detaining authority does not stretch illegitimately in exercise of its jurisdiction. Though the
jurisdiction of the Court in the matter is limited with regard to the scanning of the facts which led to
the satisfaction of the detaining authority it cannot be asserted or argued that the detention order is
beyond the pale of scrutiny.

16. In the background of the aforesaid view expressed by Hon'ble Apex Court as economic
order is the basic need of any organized and civilized society and circulation of counterfeit currency
is having an increasingly deleterious effect on the national economy and thereby a serious effect on
security of the State. Therefore, as in span of three years the petitioner was arrested in two cases
pertaining to offence of similar nature, therefore, the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that the
petitioner would involve in supply of counterfeit currency after release based on material placed
before him cannot be said to be a satisfaction based on surmise. We have no hesitation, in our mind,
that here it is a case in which on the basis of facts and circumstances stated above and entire
material placed before the District Magistrate, he could reasonably be satisfied that unless the
petitioner is detained, the petitioner may continue the activity of circulating the counterfeit currency
in the area and thereby eroding public faith in governance by State and financial institutions. One
cannot escape to other conclusion that the activities of the petitioner were highly prejudicial to the
State and maintenance of 'public order' and, therefore, his detention, in the circumstances, was
justified because possession of counterfeit currency has no other purpose unless the counterfeit
currency is put in circulation, as the same has no face value till it is in possession of an individual.
The animus of possessing counterfeit currency is certainly with motive to exchange the same.
8 All. Neeraj Vs Union Of India & Ors.
879
17. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was never supplied
copy of any report of inspector, incharge of Police Station- Ecotec-III but perusal of annexures to
the writ petition transpires that District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar, passing the detention order
supplied the report of Station House Officer as well as all papers to the petitioner through Jail
Superintendent on the same day of passing of impugned order and in counter affidavit the District
Magistrate has stated that undated representation of petitioner was received in office on 07.09.2015.
The aforesaid representation was processed and sent to the Government of India, New Delhi and to
the State Government, U.P., Lucknow on 29.09.2015. In view of above, the petitioner's right to
make the representation against the order of detention being fundamental right finds safeguard from
furnishing of the copies of the relevant annexures along with detention order through Jail
Superintendent to the petitioner.

18. No other argument is pressed before us.

19. In the result, the petitioner is not successful in challenging the detention order on any
count whatsoever. His detention is clearly in accordance with procedure as established by law. The
writ petition has no merit, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-----------
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 880
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No.- 2961 Of 2016

Heera Lal Chaurasiya & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ramendra Asthana, V.S. Kushwaha, Veer Bhagat Singh Kushwah

Counsel for the Respondents:
Manish Kumar Jain; Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Counsel assisted at hearing

Small Cause Court Suit - Rent and eviction decree challenged under Article 227; tenants questioned rate of
rent, validity of notice determining tenancy, and contended that the Small Causes Court had not formulated
points of determination before pronouncing judgment - Held, prior framing of issues or prior formulation of
points of determination is not mandatory in a summary suit under Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887; Order XIV Rule 1 CPC stands excluded by Order L Rule 1(a) CPC, and compliance with Order
XX Rule 4 CPC is sufficient if the judgment itself states the points for determination and the decision thereon;
earlier dismissal of tenants' declaratory suit regarding rent was a material piece of evidence on rate of rent; no
defect in notice was pleaded or proved; petition dismissed, though four months' time granted to vacate on
undertaking and payment of damages at Rs. 1,000/- per month from 1.8.2016. (Paras 7-25)
Petition Dismissed

Case Law discussed:
Dau Dayal Tandon v. Additional District Judge, Naini Tal and others, 1982 ARC 356
Mazahar Husain v. Smt. Kaneej Zairab, 1999 (2) LCD 317
Yasin and another v. Murari Lal, 2013 (2) ARC 376
Kamla Verma (Smt.) v. Union of India, 2015 (2) ARC 514
Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda through his L.Rs. and another, 1993 (1) ARC 249

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri P.K. Jain, Senior
Counsel, assisted by Sri Manish Kumar Jain, has appeared for the contesting respondents.

2. The dispute is in respect of a shop between the owners and landlords on one side and the
tenant on the other side.