DEVESH CHOURASIA V. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,JABALPUR

Advertisements

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.-125 OF 2022

COURT- SUPREME COURT

BENCH:- HON’BLE  J. D.Y CHANDRACHUD,DINESH MAHESHWARI

DATE  OF JUDGEMENT:- 24 JANUARY,2022

APPELLANT:- DEVESH CHOURASIA

RESPONDENT:- THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,JABALPUR

FACTS:-

1. The appellant was an employee, who was running a pharmacy in the city hospital own by Sarabjit Singh Mokha,whose petition was ongoing in the high court.Sarabjit singh mokha petition was rejected by the high court by a judgement dated 24 August 2021.Moreover,the appellant’s petition was also rejected on the same day by another judgement.
2. During the course of petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution a detention order dated 11 May 2021 by district magistrate in exercise of power under section 3(2) of National Security Act,1980 was passed against him,subsequently another order of detention for the period of three months was passed on dated 8 July,2021 to which the appellant assailed against.
3. The fact of the Sarabjit singh mokha and the Devesh chourasia is substantially same.The allegations against the appellant was that,he ordain a fake Remdesivir injections during the pandemic era which was administered to around 50 patients.They were illegally gaining profits by jeopardizing the life of general public.
4. The appellant against the judgement of the high court approached the Supreme court by Special Leave petition under Article 236 of the Indian Constitution.

ISSUES:–

1. The delay in providing representation provided under Section 8(1) of NSA is justifiable?
2. The liability of the failure of the communication between the central and the state government regarding the rejection of the representation in a timely manner?

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:-

1. The said order of detention dated 11 May 2021 was mainly based upon the recommendation of the superintendent of police(SP).
2. Claiming that there was no independent application of mind by the District Magistrate for passing the order.
3. As per Article 22(5) of the indian Constitution right of representation is a Fundamental right which was delayed here.
4. The order passed by the District Magistrate was also mainly based upon the recommendation of SP.The appellant stated that the Station House Omcer(SHO) omti,Jabalpur sent Communication on 27 june 2021,which led to the SP’s recommendation dated 29 July 2021.

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT:-

1. The argument from the respondent contended that the order of detention can be passed based upon the information and the medium which may not be strictly valid under Evidence Act.It can be exercised as per the needs and demands of the administration to consider some evidence to get going against the detenu.
2. The Respondent stated that the Article 22(5) of the Constitution,i.e.,”as soon as may be” has no statutory time given under the constitution or under any detention law.
3. The Respondent contended,the ground of delay is not justified.In situations like Pandemic,where the authorities were working day and nights

To battle the situations out of covid-19 pandemic, if some delay result in deciding the representation it’s not harmful.

JUDGEMENTS:-

1. The supreme court observed that the Appellant’s representation against the detention order was not scrutinize emciently.And the failure of communication between the central and the state government of such rejection of representation to the appellant in a given time manner resulted,in the quashing of the detention order aswell as further detention order.
2. Leave was granted to the Petitioner.

REFERENCES:-

Devesh Chourasia vs The District Magistrate, … on 24 January, 2022  (indiankanoon.org)

devesh-chourasia-vs-district-magistrate-jabalpur-2022-livelaw-sc-122- 408900.pdf

Devesh Chourasia vs The District Magistrate Jabalpur on 24 August, 2021 (indiankanoon.org)

Devesh Chourasia vs The District Magistrate Jabalpur on 24 August, 2021 (indiankanoon.org)

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin