The Madhya Pradesh High Court, held that a FIR lodged against alleged offences would not bar concerned authorities from ordering preventive detention under Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.
This was held in the case of Abdul Mahmood Rangrez v. Union of India & Ors (WRIT PETITION No. 19623 of 2022).
The case was presided over by the division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case of the petitioner is that the respondents, on information that the petitioner and his son are illegally stocking essential commodities in their house following which a search was made.
As per respondents, 116 bags of grains were stored in the house. It was intended to be transported elsewhere. Four bags were also found stored in a vehicle. The respondents visited the fair price shop belonging to the petitioner’s son and noted the discrepancy of the stocks.
Thereafter the order of preventive detention was issued under Section 3(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (for short “the Act”), ordering detention for a period of six months in terms of the impugned order of detention. Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are virtually no allegations against the petitioner. That if at all the case of the respondents is to be accepted, the case can only be made out against his son and not him.
The state argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender. That he is involved in stocking of essential commodities against the provisions of the Act. That his son is absconding. That the petitioner was found at the place where the raid was conducted and the essential commodities were recovered from the house of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT OF THE CASE
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the contentions put forth by the State. The court held that-
However, we are of the view that so far as Section 3 of the Act is concerned, it is intended to ensure that the detenu does not commit offences under the Act. An order of detention is passed to ensure that the detenu does not act in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. Therefore, it is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority before an order of detention is passed. As to how the subjective satisfaction is to be arrived at, has been held by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There has to be application of mind by the detaining authority in order to pass an order of detention. The grounds of detention would clearly indicate the history of the petitioner with regard to the offences committed by him. The grounds of detention would also indicate the consideration of the detaining authority so far as the order of bail is concerned. Therefore, we find that there is absolute application of mind by the detaining authority while passing the order
With the aforesaid observations, the Court held that the impugned order of preventive detention was just and appropriate. Accordingly, finding the petition devoid of merit, the petition was dismissed.
“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 a 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.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VYSHNAVI KRISHNAN.