Dinesh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 9-1-2000 Annexure 1 to the petition, passed under the National Security Act.

In our opinion this petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that the District Magistrate did not apply his mind independently while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. He rejected only on the ground that after approval of the detention order by the State Government the District Magistrate was not empowered to consider the said representation. This has been stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of the then District Magistrate.

It has been held by this Court in Idrish v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs 2002 U.P. Cri R 718 (para 4) that the District Magistrate must independently apply his mind while deciding the representation, and he cannot reject it only on the ground that the State Government has approved the detention order. This Court in Lallan Goswami v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Naini has also taken this view vide, Habeas Corpus Petition No. 32229 of 2002 decided on 30-9-2002, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar v. Union of India 1995 SCC (Cri) 643 where if has been held that the right of the detenu to make a presentation to the District Magistrate is in addition to his right to make representation to the State Government and the Central Government.

Although we are allowing this petition, we are doing it with a heart because the allegations against the petitioner are serious as he is allegedly involved in dealing with fake currency notes which is adversely affecting the economic system of our country. However, since the law of Habeas Corpus is a technical law we have to allow this petition.

It is, therefore, not necessary to go into other submission. The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless required in some other criminal or preventive detention case.