W. P. (Cri.) (SH) No. 4 of 2013. Case: Champion R. Sangma Vs State of Meghalaya and Ors. Meghalaya High Court
| Case Number | W. P. (Cri.) (SH) No. 4 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: S. Dey, Adv. and For Respondents: K. Khan, Addl. Sr. P.P. |
| Judges | S. R. Sen, J. |
| Issue | Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act (5 of 1995) - Sections 3, 15 |
| Citation | 2013 CriLJ 3827 |
| Judgement Date | June 13, 2013 |
| Court | Meghalaya High Court |
Judgment:
-
The brief fact of the case in nutshell is that, one Shri. K. Shabong, Sub Inspector, Special Cell, East Khasi Hills District lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-charge, Pynursla Police Station alleging that he was deputed on 29.07.12 to conduct Naka with the Special Cell Team at Umkrem 'Pyrdiwah Axis'. At about 6:00 a.m., he noticed one person moving suspiciously in the forest area, apprehended him and came to know that he is Mr. Champion Sangma, Chairman of GNLA outfit organization. On the basis of the FIR, a case was registered as Pynursla P.S Case No. 25 (7) 2012 u/S. 16, 38 (1) and 38 (2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 12, I.P. Act was registered. However, bail application was moved which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong and the accused was finally charge-sheeted.
-
The detenu was also shown arrested in connection with Nongstoin P.S Case No. 9 (2) of 2012 under Section 121-A/353/307/34 IPC, r/w Section 10/13, U.A.(P) Act, 1967 and Section 27 (2) of Arms Act and Nonstoin Police Station Case No. 10(2) of 2012 under Section 121-A/302/34 IPC, r/w Section 10/13, U.A.(P) Act 1967 and Section 27 of Arms Act. Thereafter, by detention order No. EGH/CON.189 (MPDA)/ 2013/2 issued by the District Magistrate East Garo Hills Williamnagar dated 29.01.13. The petitioner/accused was detained under Section 3(1) of Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995 vide order dated 29.01.13. The Governor of Meghalaya approved the detention and the detenu was also supplied with a copy of the grounds of detention on the same date. The detenu vide representation dated 14.02.13 addressed to the respondent prayed for revocation of the same and finally approached this Court by way of this instant writ petition.
-
The learned counsel Mr. S Dey appeared on behalf of the petitioner/accused argued that the petitioner was not informed about his right to make representation to the Central Government. Secondly, the petitioner's representation before the detaining authority i.e the District Magistrate concerned is still remained pending. Therefore, there is total violation of the provision of the Meghalaya Preventive Detention Act, 1995. In support of his submissions he relied on the following judgments passed in these cases (1) Hansaben Jayantilal Shah v. Union of India and Ors., 1994 (4) SCC 148. (2) Vimalchand Jawantraj Jain v. Shri Pradhan and Ors., 1979 (4) SCC 401: (AIR 1979 SC 1501: 1979 Cri LJ 1131). (3) Rongjam Momin v. Union of India and Ors., 2005 (1) GLT 173.
-
The learned counsel further contended that the detention order does not specifically speaks reasons of detention or grounds of detention, so the entire detention is illegal and may be quashed.
-
On the other hand the learned senior Addl. PP Mr. K Khan who appeared on behalf of the State respondent submitted that there is nothing wrong in the detention order nor any provision has been violated. He also argued that from the additional affidavit, it is clear that no representation has been placed before the detaining authority. Secondly, the detenu was informed about his right to make his representation to the State Government and the same was disposed of in time. The learned counsel further contended that the representation was filed on 14.02.13, the detention order was confirmed on 15.03.13 and the representation was disposed of on 26.03.13. Therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the State, so detention order may not be interfered with. In support of his submission he relied on D.M. Nagaraja v. Government of Karnataka and Ors., 2011 (10) SCC 215: (AIR 2012 SC 295).
-
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for...
To continue reading
Request your trial