0

Under Article 226 of the Constitution and the principle of double jeopardy as enshrined under Article 20(2) would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioner cannot be made to suffer twice under two different Acts for the same set of offences: HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

The petition stands allowed and is hereby quashed by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of ANNU @ ANURAG V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH through HON’BLE JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case are that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 07.12.2021, passed by the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Ujjain whereby, the petitioner has been externed from the District Ujjain and its adjoining Districts for the period of one year under Section 5 of the M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam,1990 (hereinafter, the Adhiniyam). The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that much prior to the said order, an order of detention dated 19.8.2020 was also passed against the petitioner under the provisions of National Security Act,1980 (hereinafter, the National Security Act) for a period of three months and now the order of externment has also been passed on the same set of criminal cases which have also been considered in the order of detention. Thus, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no application of mind by the respondents in passing the aforesaid order, and also that the order of externment runs contrary to the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and amounts to double jeopardy. It is further submitted that there are 32 criminal cases registered against the petitioner, most of them were of serious nature which has led to passing of the order of externment. However, there is no traversing of the averments made in the petition regarding the petitioner’s detention under the provisions of National Security Act on the same set of facts. It is further submitted that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to rebut the show cause notice.

JUDGEMENT
In this case, it is apparent that while passing the impugned order of externment dated 07.12.2021, the District Magistrate, Ujjain has relied upon the 32 criminal cases registered against the petitioner till 11.7.2020; whereas the order of detention was passed on 19.8.2020 and in which also the same cases were referred to Thus, it is apparent that when the aforesaid order of detention was passed by the Collector under the National Security Act on 19.8.2020, all the cases registered against the petitioner were already taken into consideration. Whereas, the show cause notice in the present case was issued to the petitioner on 15.7.2021, i.e., prior to the issuance of the order of detention. It is also found that the order of detention was passed only for a period of three months which has already expired and the petitioner has also not challenged the same, and thereafter, no other case has been registered against the petitioner. In such circumstances, after the period of detention was over, the respondents had no right to passing the order of externment against the petitioner, as the object of both the Acts viz; the National Security Act and the Act of 1990 is to prevent an accused from committing further offence and which purpose, in the considered opinion of this Court was already served while passing the order of detention which is apparently a harsher measure than an order of externment, and there was no fresh reason/criminal case registered against the petitioner which may give rise to a fresh apprehension in the minds of the District Magistrate that the petitioner would continue his criminal activities after around one year of coming out of the jail and would disturb the public peace. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the availability of alternative remedy would be no bar in entertaining this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the principle of double jeopardy as enshrined under Article 20(2) would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioner cannot be made to suffer twice under two different Acts for the same set of offences.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Click here to read the Judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREYA NIDHI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat