FIR Lodged For Alleged Offences Does Not Bar Preventive Detention U/S 3 Blackmarketing Act To Prevent Future Crimes: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently clarified that even if the FIR is lodged against the alleged act of an accused, the Authority concerned would not be barred from ordering preventive detention under Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra observed- If at all the contention of the petitioner were to be accepted that once an F.I.R. has been lodged then no orders of preventive detention can be passed. In that event there can never ever be an order under Section 3 of the Act, in a case where an offence is committed and an F.I.R. is lodged. Just because an F.I.R. has been lodged, cannot prevent the detaining authority from passing an order under Section 3. An F.I.R. is lodged for an offence that is committed. An order under Section 3 is an order for prevention of future crimes. Facts of the case were that the Collector-cum-District Magistrate had passed an order of Preventive Detention against the Petitioner and his son, pursuant to his powers U/S 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act, 1980. It was alleged that they were illegally stocking essential commodities in their house. Aggrieved, the Petitioner moved the Court. The Petitioner submitted that there were virtually no allegations against him and that even if the version of the State was to be accepted, the case was only made against his son and not him. He further pointed out that the police had registered a case against him for the alleged act U/S 406, 34 IPC and U/S 7(3) of the Essential Commodities Act. Though, he was taken under custody, the Court had granted him bail. Despite the same, he asserted, the Authority passed the impugned order without properly assessing all the facts. To substantiate his case, the Petitioner relied upon the decision of a division bench of the Court in Sanjay Kurmi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Per contra, the State argued that the Petitioner was a habitual offender and that he was deeply involved in the alleged act. The State informed the Court that the Authority was cognizant of the fact that the Petitioner was granted bail. While taking that into consideration, it found it fit to pass the order of preventive detention. Thus, it was pleaded that no fault could be found with the impugned order and therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed. Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the contentions put forth by the State. Elucidating the provisions U/S 3 of the Act, 1980, the Court opined that the order of preventive detention is passed based on the subjective satisfaction of the Authority concerned- 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. Rejecting the argument of the Petitioner regarding the FIR, the Court noted that the FIR is registered for an act that has already been committed whereas the order of preventive detention is passed to prevent an illegal act from happening. Thus, the Court observed that the Authority had passed the order of detention after considering all the facts and circumstances in the case- The contention that the petitioner was already in custody by virtue of the F.I.R. lodged against him, in our considered view, may not be relevant to affect the order of detention. The detaining authority was very well aware that he is under custody with regard to the F.I.R. that is lodged. That itself cannot constitute a ground to dissuade the detaining authority not to pass an order of detention. An order of detention is passed in order to prevent future commission of crimes. An F.I.R. is lodged for the offences that have already taken place. Therefore, there are two concepts altogether. Therefore, even if he is in custody for the offences that he has committed, the detaining authority is entitled to pass an order of detention. 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.Case Title: Abdul Mahmood Rangrez v. Union of India & Ors.Case...

FIR Lodged For Alleged Offences Does Not Bar Preventive Detention U/S 3 Blackmarketing Act To Prevent Future Crimes: MP High Court

Zeeshan Thomas

Tags