ALIJAN MIAN AND ANOTHER versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DHANBAD

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 13-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

•• 
939 
ALIJAN MIAN AND ANOTHER 
v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DHANBAD 
September 13, 1983 
(A. i:'· SEN, E. S. VENKATAAAMJAH AND R. B. MISRA JJ.] 
National security Act, 1980 (Act 6~ of 1980)-0rders of detention, passed 
under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, on the ground that "the subject who 
is in jail and ;s likely to be released on bail, if allowed to be at large, will indulge 
in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" - Whether the deten-
tion is bad either on the ground that there was tio c ase made out for ap ptehension 
of breach of public order or that the criminal proceedings having been initiated, no 
case of preventive detention arises or that the case is one of law and Order and 
not a case of public order or that there being no al{egation in t~e First lnfonna-
tion Report, the detaining authority cannot inverlt a new ground to fall under 
sub-section (2) of section 3 of tire Act. 
· 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD : 1. The clear words Q(, the detention order show that the 
detaining authority was al~ve to the fact· that the petitioners wer~ in jail custody 
on the date of passing of the detention orders, but it was satisfied that if they 
were enlarged on bail, of whi~h there was every likelihood, they would create 
problems of public order and, therefore, it was necessary to prevent them from 
doing so. The position would have been entirely different if the petitioners· 
were in jail and had to remain in jail for a pretty long time, in which situation 
there could be no apprehensi,on of breach of public order from them. [944 C-E] 
. 
' 
' 
2. .Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does not relate 
to an offence while t~e criminal proceedings are to punish a person for an 
offence committed by him. They are not parallel proceedings. In the circum-
stances the peiidency of a criminal prosecution is no bar to an order of pre-
ventive detention, nor is an order of preventive detention a bar to prosecution. 
It is for the detaining authority to have the subjective satisfaction whether in 
such a case there are sufficient materials to place the person ·under preventive 
detention in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public 
• 
order or the like in future. [944 F-H] 
K. M. Chokshi v. State of Gujarat, [1979) 4 SCC 14, applied. 
3.1. · The difference between 'law and order' ;ind 'Public order' is noW 
well settled. Applying the. well settled law enunciated in Fam Ranjan Chatterjee 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
A 
B 
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1983] 3 s.c.R. 
v. The State of West Bengal, [1975] 3 SCR 301, to the two incidents, it is clear 
tpat throwing a bomb in a large gathering where a cultural programme was 
going on at the dead of night . resulting in the public running helter and 
skelter to save their lives makes out a case of 'public order' inasmuch as it 
disturbed the tranquillity and the even tempo· of life of the public. Therefore, 
if the detaiDing authority was satisfied that· the two incidents make out a case 
of apprehensioii of breach of public order, the detention order can·not be 
faulted. [945 G; 946 E-G] , 
Ram Ranjan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, [1975] 3 S.C.R. 301 
followed. • 
.iQya Mala v. Home /Secretary, Government of J & K, AIR 
1982 SC: 
C 
1297, distinguished. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
3:2. The twO incidents in· the instant case were sufficient for the.detain-
ing authority to initiate proceedings for preventive detention. It is for the 
detaining authority to have the subjective satisfaction about the apprehension 
of the breach of public order from the incidents. Even one inciderit may be 
sufficient to satisfy the detaining authority. It all depends upon tl~e nature of 
the incident. [947 G-H] 
• 
4. The absence of an allegation: ·about the disturbance of public order 
· in the two First ·Information Reports will not affect the position because there 
was additional material before the detaining authority which i;atisfied him 
abciut the apprehension of breach of public order from the petitioners in case 
they were enlarged on bail. (948 C-D] 
, 
'EXTRAORDINJ..RY 
ORIGINAL 
JURISDICTION 
(Criminal) Nos. 678 and 679 of 1983. 
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
Miss R. Vaigai for the Petitioners. 
D. Goburdhan for the Respondent. 
,.. 
The Judgment of the Cour~ was delivered by 
Writ 
Petition 
• 
MISRA J. 
These two connected petitions seek to challenge 
the orders of detention dated 2nd December, 198
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.