Inam vs State of U.P. and Others

S.K. Agarwal, J.—This petition was preferred by this Petitioner Inam against the order of detention dated 21.5.2002, passed u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called as ''NSA''). The Petitioner along with his companion, namely, Meharban were arrested on 23.5.2002, while they were waiting for the poor, protected animals, in the Shivalik Range Sanctuary to fall prey to the trap laid by them. They had firearms in their possession. Earlier on 22.5.2002 the Forest Officer, Mohand Range, Shivalik, P.S. Biharigarh, Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, had sent a letter to S.O., P.S. Biharigarh, pointing out that in his protected forest region for the last few days some armed persons were sighted. He suspected them to be either forest wood smugglers or poachers. Their activities created panic and fear amongst the residents of the area as also amongst the forest staff. These people fear entering into the jungle. An enquiry was conducted by a Head Constable of P.S. Biharigarh accompanied with force and the suspicion of the Forest Officer was found to have substance.

As earlier discussed, on 23.5.2002 the Petitioner was arrested along with Meharban when they were in the process of trapping protected animals. They had prepared special nets for the purpose. On their arrest, they also confessed about their past activities and promised to get recovered the skins of Guldar and Bijju and horns of Sambhar. These articles were recovered from the house of the two accused including the Petitioner on the same day. Offences were registered u/s 307, I.P.C. vide Crime No. 68 of 2002 for opening fire on the police when they approached them, Crime No. 69 of 2002 u/s 25 of the Arms Act, Crime No. 70 of 2002 under the same section and Crime No. 71 of 2002 under Sections 9/49/49A/51 of the Forest Animals Protection Act.

From the grounds of detention, it also appears that they were involved in number of offences including Section 110, Cr. P.C., Section 3(2) of the U.P. Goonda Act, Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act and some offences of the Indian Penal Code and Forest Act. In all, their involvement was noticed in 10 such cases.

The charge was that the Petitioner was running a gang and was committing the offence of killing the protected animals by stealthily entering into the Shivalik Forest Sanctuary in order to obtain their skins, bones, paws, teeth and horns. They also engaged themselves into stealing of precious wood from the forest. Thus, they were endangering not only the lives of the protected animals but also stealing away the precious wood from the forest for themselves. Their activities allegedly caused commotion in the area of the said protected forest. The residents of the area were struck with panic and fear.

The detention order, as earlier discussed, was passed on 31.5.2002. The papers for approval were sent on 31.5.2002 itself to the State Government. It were received on 3.6.2002. The detention order was approved by the State Government on 5.6.2002.

The grounds of detention categorically state that the Petitioner had a right to represent. He can represent to the Secretary (Home), Government of India, Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. and Advisory Board. The Petitioner sent his representations through the Superintendent (Jail) to the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, on 13/15.6.2002, i.e., 15 days after the detention order was served on him along with the grounds of detention. The same was received by the detaining authority on 15.6.2002. It was sent by the District Magistrate to the Government on 22.6.2002 and was received by the State Government on 24.6.2002. It is available from the counter-affidavit filed by Sri C. P. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. The representation was rejected by the Government on 28.6.2002. A communication of the same was made to the Petitioner by radiogram and otherwise also on 2.7.2002.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the representation dated 13/15.6.2002 was sent by the District Magistrate to the State Government very belatedly. It was received at the end of the District Magistrate on 15.6.2002 and was despatched to the Government at Lucknow on 22.6.2002. However, it is also pertinent to point out, as is available from the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, that 16th and 18th were holidays. Excluding these two days, only five days were taken by the District Magistrate in dispatching the representation to the Government of U.P. for its consideration. The representation, on its receipt, was sent that very day to the S.S.P. for his comments. The comments from the S.S.P. was received by the District Magistrate on 19.6.2002. He took two days in preparing his own comments upon the same and despatched it thereafter on 22.6.2002. Therefore, in our opinion, there is absolutely no delay. The representation was rejected by the Government on 28.6.2002. It was received on 24.6.2002. 23.6.2002 was a Sunday. Therefore, there was hardly any delay in the disposal of representation by the State Government.

It is next contended that in the grounds of detention, it has not been categorically pointed out by the District Magistrate that the Petitioner has a right to represent. We have examined the grounds of detention and the language that was incorporated in the grounds is quoted as under:

Aapko ukt adhiniyam ki dhara 8 ke anusaran me suchit kiya jata hai ki aisa aadesh jiske aadhin aapko nirudh kiya gaya hai, ke birudh aapko Rajya Sarkar ko pratyabedan dene ka adhikar prapt hai.

Thus, so far as the right of the Petitioner is concerned, its existence has categorically been notified to the Petitioner by the District Magistrate, the detaining authority. Therefore, this contention does not hold any water, in our opinion. No other ground was pressed by the Petitioner except that the offence committed by the Petitioner has not the potential to disturb the public tranquillity and public order. The offence simply gave rise to maintenance of law and order. We do not see eye to eye with the contention. The offence of poaching of protected animals of rare species and smuggling of the log of costly wood of precious plants is an offence against the society by its very nature. It would, create serious concern amongst the residents of the area. It also causes environmental imbalance. We are keen to see that the animals who were marked for preservation in any such Sanctuary be gradually not extinct from the world map. They must not be poached or the wood of the precious plants be not taken away in the manner in which these smugglers and poachers use to do. Their activity, therefore, has far reaching ramifications on the social life of the neighbouring area as also on the state exchequer. Therefore, in our opinion, the detention order was rightly clamped upon the Petitioner.

We cannot shut our eyes to such planned activities by poachers and forest wood smugglers. By their nefarious acts, they show complete disrespect to the poor undefended preserved category of animals who are kept in such sanctuaries for their preservation and healthy growth of their species under international declarations. Poaching of such hapless animals cannot be allowed. They are national preserves. Such poachings cause serious social ramifications. The nation earns international disrepute.

It is next contended that the Petitioner has almost served out his length of detention. He was detained on 31.5.2002. The detention, therefore, would come to an end on 30.5.2003. Only 11 days are later.

We have heard the petition on 19.5.2003. Only 11 days remains for the Petitioner to serve out under this detention order. However, we are not inclined to interfere on this count at all. It is not a fit case where the compassion is to be exercised by the Court.

In the result this petition is dismissed.