LexANAL CHANDRA BANARJEE versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
348 ANAL CHANDRA BANARJEE v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL February 2, 1972 [J. M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] Preventive detention-Vagueness of ground--Omission to nzention locality where incident occurred--Or-Specify the group lvith which 1he petitioner came into clash-Petitioner prevented froni effectivel_v making representation-West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The petitioner was detained under s. 3 (i) and (iii) of the West Beng:il (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The first and the second ground of detention served on him mentioned two incidents of t\left and throwing of bombs with intent to kill said to have been dommitted in the yard of Naibati Railway Station. The third and the last ground was that on January 13, 1971 between 12 and 12.20 hrs. the petitioner along with his associates "being armed with bombs, swoh:ls, lathis, etc. entered in a clash with another group with a view to kill them" and that bis "violent activities cre.ated a serious panic in the Ststion area ruid disturbed public ordel'." The petitioner contended, inter alia that ground No. 3 was vague and uncertain and was couched in such indefinite langll'!lge that it would be itppossible for the petitioner to effectively make a representation and therefore his detention was invalid. In his representation the petitioner had merely denied all the three grounds and maintai.ned toot he had no concern with any of the three incidents alleged in the grounds of deten- tion. In bis written arguments submitted to this Court the petitioner stated that the allegations in respect of all the grounds were made against him by the Naib:i.ti Railway Police and that they were false. In the reply affidavit. of the state the averment for the first time made was that the alleged incident ·in ground No. 3 took place not in Naibati Railway Station area but at another railway station. Allowing the petition, HELD : (I) Ground No. 3 is vague by reason of its om1Ss1on to mention the locality. It is clear that the petitioner was under the impres- sion, in the absence of the place or the locality where the incident was A ll c D E F said to have taken place having been mentioned, th~t the said incident had taken place either in Naibati Railway Station or the area under the jurisdiction of Naibati police. Therefore, apart from ground No. 3 beina vague by reason of its omission to mention the locality, there was in the context of the other two grounds a likclthood of the petitloneir being under G a wrong impression that •<!'Ording to the District Magistrate the incident there alleged had taken place in the Naibati Railway Station area. That being so, the omilision to· mention the IOC21ity prevented. the petitioner from effectively making a representation. [352 DJ (2) Tlie omission to specify the group with whom the petitioner and his a5sociates came into clash also renders that ground vague and indefi- nite, resulting once again in disabling the petitioner from effectively making H a representation. [352 BJ ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 274 of 1971. • • A B c A. c. BANERJEE v. WEST BENGAL (She/at, J.) ~49 Under f\rticle 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. N. N. Goswami, for the petitioner. D. N. Mukherjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. The Judgment or the Court was delivered by Shela!, J. The order of detention, dated April 7, 1971, passed a,llainst the petitioner ho~rein and in pursuance of which· the peti- tioner was arrested and detained in jail the next day, recites that it was passed under sec .. ~ ( 1) and (3) of the West Bengal (Pre- vention -of Violent Acilvitj_es) Act, President's Act 19 of 1970, !he ground for which was' tlfa~ the District Magisll'll'te, 24 Par- ganas, who Jl\ISSed it, was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from- acting in a manner · · i:>rejudicial to the maintenance of public order. D E F .G H The grounds of detention sel'Vect on him at the time of his arrest narrated three incidents in which he was said to have been involved. The first ground was that on November 13, 1970 he, · together with some others, committed theft of copper traction wire from a wagon lying in Naihati South Yard, and that when the railway police and the railway protection force on duty rushed at the spot, the petitioner and his associates threw
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.