LexSTATE OF U.P. versus KAMAL KISHORE SAINI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF U.P. A v. KAMAL KISHORE SAINI NOVEMBER 6, 1987 [A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] B National Security Act, 1980-Detention under section 3(2) - thereof. - .. 1 The respondent, Kamal Kishore Saini, was detained under an +--order of detention under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. He challenged the said order of detention before the High Court under C Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court quashed the order of detention. The State appealed to this Court by special leave. Dismissing the appeal, the Court, D HELD: The order of detention is illegal and bad on the ground of non-supply of the vital documents and materials to the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation against the grounds or deten- tion and as such his right of making an effective representation as contemplated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been infringed. Also, the non-production of the relevant materials before the E detaining authority for his consideration before his passing the order of detention, renders the order of detention Invalid and illegal. [867G-H; 868A-BJ Asha Devi v. K. Shivrai, (1979] 1 SCC 222; Gurdip Singh v. L. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 362; Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of f Bihar & Ors., (1966] 1 SCR 705; Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, F (1970] 3 SCR 283 Pushkar Mukharjee v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 352; Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, [1982] 2 SCC 403, and Guiab Mehra v. State of U.P. & Ors., 4JT 1981 (3) SS9, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 1986. G --+- From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .4.1986 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 6823 of 1985. Dalveer Bhandari for the petitioner. H 859 860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 1 S.C.R. A Shakeel Ahmed Syed for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.C. RAY, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judg- ment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad B in writ petition Nos. 6823 of 1985 and 6522 of 1985. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:- c The respondent Kamal Kishore Saini was detained under Section 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980 by an order served on him on 28th November, 1985 on three grounds which are stated hereu~er:- (I) That on 4th June, 19.85 one Jeet Narain Awasthi, resident of_,f. Indira Nagar, Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow lodged a First Infor- ' mation Report at Police Station Ghazipur that on the night of 4/5th June, 1985 his younger brother Vishnu Narain Awasthi at about 20 hours had left to sleep in house No. 2040 of Indira Nagar, Lucknow D occupied by Sri R.S. Raghuvanshi since Sri Raghuvanshi had gone out to Jaunpur, his home town and had entrusted custody of his house to the said Vishnu Narain Awasthi. At 11.00 in the night some persons informed the complainant that his brother had been shot by certain persons and when the complainant reached the spot he found Vishnu Narain Awasthi lying in a pool of blood and he had already died. It is ''r E alleged that on the basis of the F.I.R. on 4th June, 1985 crime No. 101 of 1985 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Ghazipur Police Station against unknown accused. The names of the detenus, it is said figured during investigation and the charge-sheet has been submitted in the concerned court which is pending trial. F (2) That on 13th June, 1985 one Baldeo Prasad Awasthi, resi- dent of Ismailganj, Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow lodged a First ·-f Information Report at Police Station Alambagh, Lucknow that his son Ram Kumar and his son-in-law, Nand Kishore had gone to meet an accused in the District Jail where the complainant also reached at about 1.30 p.m. but they could not meet the accused. Ram Kumar and G Nand Kishore proceeded towards home on one rickshaw while the other rickshaw was being occupied by the complainant. When they reached a little distance from the Jail, near the residence of the Jail - Superintendent, at about 1.45 p.m. Rajiv Hazra and Kamal Kishore ;,.-· Saini, the two detenus and one Anandi Shukla, said to be an accomp- lice of one Ram Gopal, came on a scooter, stopped it and chal- H lenged Ram Kumar, N and Ki shore and the complainant and filed at -y , -- STATE OF U.P. v. K.K. SAINI [RAY, J.] 861 them. The complainant as also Ram Kumar and Nand Kishore ran A helter and skelter when th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.