N Criminal Appeal No 353 of 1986 915 From the Judgment and order dated 2521986 of the Patna High Court in CWJC No 227 of 1985
RK Garg and Miss Rani Jethmalani for the Petitioner
D Goburdhan for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This Appeal and the Writ Petition challenge the order passed by the District Magistrate Dhanbad under section 122 of The Bihar Control of Crimes Act 1981 hereinafter called the said Act 
The order was passed on 15th January 1985 and was served on the petitioner on 7th December 1985
The impugned order was approved by the Government on 15th January 1985
The said Act was an Act to make special provisions for the control and suppression of anti social elements with a view to maintenance of public order
Section 12 deals with power to make orders for detaining persons Clause d of section 2 of the said Act states Anti Social Element  as a person who is i either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or ii habitually commits or abets the commission of offences under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act 1956 or iii who by words or otherwise promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion race language caste or community or any other grounds whatsoever feelings of enmity of hatred between different religions racial or language groups of castes or communities or iv has been found habitually passing indecent remarks to or teasing women or girls or v who has been convicted of an offence under Section 25 2627 28 or 29 of the Arms Act of 1959
916 Under section 3 the power is thereof externment on certain conditions
Sub sections1 and 2 of section 12 of the said Act provides as follows 12
Power to make orders detaining certain persons l The State Government may if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti social elements can not be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person make an order directing that such anti social element be detained
2 If having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do it may by an order in writing direct that during such period as may be specified in the order such District Magistrate may also if satisfied as provided in sub section 1 exercise the power conferred upon by the said sub section Provided that the period specified in an order made by the State Government under this sub section shall not in the first instance exceed three months but the State Government may if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time
 The other provisions are not material for the present purpose
In so far as these are relevant have been dealt with in the judgment under appeal and it is not necessary to reiterate these again
The High Court in the judgment under appeal has referred to the order of detention exhaustively
The High Court has narrated the facts in the judgment under appeal and stated as follows On 11384 on a confidential information a raid was organised under the leadership of the officer in charge of 917 Dhanbad Police Station to apprehend one Sri Raghunath Singh an absconder detenu of the National Security Act
According to the confidential information he was going to witness a Qwali programme at Sijua gate within Jagota Police station
As soon as the raiding party reached the Sijua gate they saw that Raghunath Singh was coming out of club and was going towards Sijua More
The police cordoned him and told him about his arrest under the National Security Act
On this the aforementioned Raghunath Singh called one Sakaldeo Singh who was coming towards him alongwith his associates duly armed
Sakaldeo Singh immediately reached the spot and asked the detenu and his other associates to open fire
As ordered the detenu opened fire on the police party
The police party however escaped injury
Meanwhile Raghunath Singh took the position and opened fire from his revolver which hit the SI Sri
R K Verma a member of the raiding party who fell on the ground
The police party also opened fire but the detenu and his associates quite in number under the coverage of firing fled away by breaking the cordon of the police party
The incident took place at about 150 am in presence of a large gathering which was witnessing the Qwali programme
This created great panic and alarm amongst the people who were witnessing the programme and they started running helter and skelter for their lives
A complete confusion prevailed in the programme and the police had a hard time to control the situation
This adversely affected the public order
The people were so much afraid that they stopped moving freely in the area
It is alleged that the detenu is a terror in the area and nobody dares to speak against him
He is an uncrowned king of the Mafia World and the people living in the area are under the constant threat of life and property
A case bearing Jogta PS Case No 22 dated 11384 under section 142149307 326353333224225 IPC27 Arms Act was registered for this incident and charge sheet had already been submitted in the case
Besides the aforesaid ground two cases have been referred to in the order of detention as background to show the criminality of the detenu 1
Kenduadih PS Case No 43 dated 11383 under section 30234 IPC251A27 of the Arms Act35 of the 918 Explosive Substance Act
In this case the detenu with his associates is alleged to have murdered one Sri Nagendra Singh in broad day light and a charge sheet in this case had already been submitted
The other case referred to as a background is that numbered as Kenduadih PS Case No 31 dated 11384 under section 251A35 Arms Act
In this case a DBBL gun looted in Keswar PS Case No 584 under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was recovered from the detenu s house besides cartridges of various Arms
A charge sheet in this case had also been submitted
 Upon these materials the District Magistrate in his order of detention has reiterated that he was satisfied that the petitioner is an anti social element and habitually commits offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code and as such his movements and acts adversely affect the public order
The District Magistrate further stated that he was satisfied on ground No 1 referred to hereinbefore
In so far as Jogta PS Case No 22 dated 11384 is concerned it was with regard to the same incident which resulted in the detention of the petitionerappellant
So far as the background was concerned the incident No 2 mentioned therein was Kunduadih PS Case No 31 dated 11384 with regard to the same date ie 11384 but with regard to a different occurrence
In that case a gun was looted and a case under IPC was instituted under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code
Said gun was recovered from the petitioner sappellant s house beside cartridges of various arms and a charge sheet had been submit ted in connection with Jogta PS Case No 22 dated 11384
These cases were pending at the relevant date
Therefore there was no question of the acquittal or termination of the petitioner one way or the other in respect of both the incidents of the same date
In respect of Incident No 1 referred to hereinbefore ie Kenduadih PS Case No 43 dated 11384 under section 30234 IPC251A27 Arms Act35 Explosive Substance Act in which the petitioner appellant and his associates are alleged to have murdered Sri Nagendra Singh in the broad day light a charge sheet had been submitted but the case had not been tried or terminated in any manner
All these cases were pending disposal
919 There is a proximity between these incidents betraying a nature and a tendency of committing these offences
But it cannot be denied that these indicate in the facts of this case that the petitionerappellant was one who habitually committed offences which are at least punishable under IPC
We have noted who is an anti social element under the Act
The petitionerappellant has not yet been convicted under any of these sections referred to hereinbefore
So far as the incidents referred to hereinbefore betray criminal propensity
The first incident is of a case which was one year prior to the date of the detention order and the other incident was of the same date
If in this background an appropriate authority charged with the implementation of the Act comes to the satisfaction that the petitionerappellant is one who is habitually committing or abetting the commission of offences such a conclusion is neither irrational nor unreasonable
In Vijay Narain Singh vs State of Bihar  Ors
   this Act came up for consideration by this Court
But in that case the facts were entirely different
In that case the petitioner was facing trial for offences under section 302 read with section 120B 386 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and was allowed to be enlarged on bail by the High Court
But before the petitioner was released in that case the District Magistrate passed an order on 16th August 1983 under section 122 of the said Act for detention of the petitioner
The grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner related to the incidents which took place in 1975 and 1982
There is a gap of 6 7 years in between the majority of the judges in that decision O Chinnappa Reddy and ES Venkataramiah JJ observed that the law of preventive detention is hard law and therefore should be strictly construed
Care should therefore be taken that liberty of a person is not jeopardized unless his case fell squarely within the four corners of the relevant law
AP Sen J disagreed
It is not necessary to discuss the decision in detail in view of the facts of that case and difference of the facts in this case
We only reiterate that what the majority of the learned judges said was that while adequacy or sufficiency was no ground of a challenge rele vancy or proximity were grounds of challenge
We may respectfully add that proximity would be relevant in order to determine whether an order of detention was arrived at irrationally or unreasonably
It is well settled that the detaining authority is not the sole judge of what national security or public order requires
But neither is the court the sole judge of the position
When power is given to an authority to act 920 on certain facts and if that authority acts on relevant facts and arrives at a decision which cannot be described as either irrational or unreasonable in the sense that no person instructed in law could have reasonably taken that view then the order is not bad and the Court cannot substitute its decision or opinion in place of the decision of the authority concerned on the necessity of passing the order
See in this connection the observations of The Barium Chemicals Ltd and Anr
vs The Company Law Board and others Preventive detention for the social protection of the community is as noted and observed in Vijay Narain Singh s case supra a hard law but it is a necessary evil in the modern society and must be pragmatically construed so that it works
That is how law serves the society but does not become an impotent agent
Anti social elements creating havoc have to be taken care of by law
Lawless multitude bring democracy and constitution into disrepute
Bad facts bring hard laws hut these should be properly and legally applied
It should be so construed that it does not endanger social defence or the defence of the community at the same time does not infringe the liberties of the citizens
A balance should always be struck
The executive authority is not the sole judge of what is required for national security or public order
But the court cannot substitute its decision if the executive authority or the appropriate authority acts on proper materials and reasonably and rationally comes to that conclusion even though a conclusion with which the court might not be in agreement
It is not for the court to put itself in the position of the detaining authority and to satisfy itself that untested facts reveal a path of crime provided these facts are relevant
See in this connection the observations of O Chinnappa Reddy J in Vijay Narain Singh s case supra at Pages 440 and 441
In the facts of this case and having regard to the nature of the offences the impugned order cannot be said to be invalid and improper one
The High Court has very exhaustively dealt with this aspect and we respectfully agree with the High Court s view
There is no analogy between the instant case and the facts of Vijay Narain Singh s case supra decided by this Court
On materials on record it cannot be said as the High Court has rightly pointed out that the power of preventive detention has been 921 used to clip the wings of the accused  who is involved in a criminal prosecution
Certain allegations had been made that all materials had not been supplied to the accused
This is not true because as the High Court noted that all relevant FIRs were received by the petitioner and in token whereof he had put his signature in black and white in his own hand
The fact that the petitioner was in jail has been taken into consideration
How these factors and to what extent these should be taken into consideration have been discussed by this Court in Writ Petition Criminal No 296 of 1986 With SLP Criminal No 1265 of 1986
It is not necessary to reiterate them
In the instant case the limits have not been transgressed
In the background of the facts of this case that all the relevant documents were in fact supplied and no other document was asked for the observations of this Court in Ichchu Devi Chorana vs Union of India  Ors  at 651 on which reliance was placed by Mr Garg on behalf of the petitionerappellant do not apply
Mr Goberdhan on behalf of the State of Bihar rightly pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of this case and the background of the scheme of this Act there was no scope of the application of the principles reiterated by this Court in Ibrahim Ahmed Batti vs State of Gujarat and others  at 558
Similarly the observations of this Court in State of Punjab vs Jagdev Singh Talwandi  at 62  63 upon which Mr Garg relied can have no application
All the relevant documents were supplied
All the statutory safeguards were complied with
In view of the backgrounds in the facts and circumstances of this case and the grounds mentioned in the affidavit of the District Magistrate filed before the High Court in the case under appeal as well as in Writ Petition in this Court and the facts found by the High Court which are based on cogent and reliable evidence there is no ground for interference with the order of detention
Preventive detention as reiterated is hard law and must be applied with circumspection rationally reasonably and on relevant materials
Hard and ugly facts make application of harsh laws imperative
The detenu s rights and privileges as a free man should not be unnecessarily curbed
922 No other points were urged before us
This Court has reiterated in Writ Petition Criminal No 296 of 1986 with SLP Criminal No 1265 of 1986 the relevant aspect of the preventive detention law
In that view of the matter it is not necessary to reiterate those principles again here
Preventive detention is a necessary evil in the modern restless society
But simply because it is an evil it cannot be so interpreted as to be inoperative in any practical manner
Judged by all relevant standards the impugned order of detention in the case of the petitioner cannot be said to be either illegal or beyond the authority of law
Before we conclude we must point out that another point was taken that in the order there was no mention of the period of detention
There could not be an indefinite detention
The State Government has clearly notified the period of detention of the petitioner and indicated that he should be in detention till 6th December 1986
This appears at Annexure I at page 52 of the Paper Book of Criminal Appeal No 353 of 1986
The said order was passed under section 22 of the said Act by the State Government
In the premises the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed
The Criminal Appeal is also dismissed
APJ Petition and Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Bihar Control of Crimes Act 1981 was enacted to make special provisions for the control and suppression of anti social elements with a view to maintenance of public order
Section 2d defines Anti Social Element and section 12 deals with power to make orders for detaining certain persons
Upon the materials the District Magistrate hl his order of detention under section 122 has stated that he was satisfied that the petitioner was an anti social element and was habitually committing offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code and as such his movements and acts adversely affected the public order
The incidents referred to in the grounds of detention showing criminal propensity of the petitioner had taken place one year prior to the date of passing of the detention order
The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged his detention before the High Court
Dismissing the writ petition as well as the appeal this Court  HELD 1
Preventive Detention for social protection of the community is a hard law but it is a necessary evil in the modern society and must be pragmatically construed so that it works
That is how law serves the society but does not become an impotent agent
Anti social elements creating havoc have to be taken care of by law
Lawless multitude bring democracy and Constitution into disrepute
Bad facts bring hard laws but these should be properly and legally applied
It should be so construed that it does not endanger social defence or the defence of the community at the same time does not infringe the liberties of the citizens 
A balance should always be struck
920B D 914 2
The executive authority is not the sole judge of what is required for national security or public order
But the court cannot substitute its decision if the executive authority or the appropriate authority acts on proper materials and reasonably and rationally comes to that conclusion even though a conclusion with which the court might not be in agreement
It is not for the court to put itself in the position of the detaining authority and to satisfy itself that untested facts reveal a path of crime provided these facts are relevant
920E F 3
If in the background of a case and having regard to the definition of anti social element  in section 2d of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act 1981 an appropriate authority charged with the implementation of the Act comes to the satisfaction that the detenu is one who is habitually committing or abetting the commission of offences such a conclusion is neither irrational nor unreasonable
919C D 4
In the instant case it cannot be said that the power of preventive detention has been used to clip the wings of the accused  who was involved in a criminal prosecution
The fact that the petitioner was in jail has been taken into consideration and all the relevant documents were in fact supplied to him
Judged by all relevant standards the order of detention cannot be said to be either illegal or beyond the authority of law
Therefore there was no ground for interference with the order of l detention
920H 921A G 5
While adequacy or sufficiency is no ground of a challenge relevancy or proximity are grounds of challenge and proximity would be relevant in order to determine whether an order of detention was arrived at irrationally or unreasonably
919G H Vijay Narain Singh vs State of Bihar  Ors  and The Barium Chemicals Ltd and Anr
vs The Company Law Board and others 1366 Supp SCR 311 followed
Ichchu Devi Choraria vs Union of India  Ors  at 651 Ibrahim Ahmed Batti vs State of Gujarat and others  at 558 and State of Punjab vs Jagdev Singh Talwandi 1984 2 SCR at 62  63 inapplicable