LexBABULAL DAS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
193 A BABULAL DAS V. B c D F G H THE S'.f ATE OF WEST BENGAL January 17, 1975 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] Maint~nance of ~1uenwl Security Act, 1971 (Act XXVI of 1971), Section 3( l) (a)(11)-Detentron order, whether illegal on account of solitary incident. The petitioner has been detained in pursuance of the order of detention'. passed by tbe District Magistrate under sub-s. (l)(a)(ii) of s. 3 of the Mainte- nance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The act imputed to the deten\l'e is as. follows: "That on 16-2-73 between 10..08 and 10-14 hours you along with your other associates, being armed with gun and other w~apons com· mitted a dacoity In a 3rd class compartment of running train S 11 O Dn. between Habibpur R.S. and Kalinarayanpur Junction R.S. in Ramaghat-Santipur Section and snatched away cash Rs, 30,000 /. from Shri Ashutosh Pal of Calcutta causing bullet injuries to him putting all passengers to fear of death." It was contended for the detenu that ?. solitary incident canno't imperrn i11ternal security and therefore, the order is illegal. Rejecting the contention and dismissing the writ .petition. HELD : One who reads the ground of detention, will be alarmed by the training and planning and sinister preparation of skill and spirit which has. made possible the commission of the act imputed-organised dacoity in a running railway train by an armed gang equipped with fire-arms and putting innocent passengers to Peril to life and property. Such action is so manifestly suggestive of desperate daring. organised ganging and habitual proclivity to violenee that. it cannot be held unreasonable to infer therefrom a trendy course of criminal conduct-,a!though intercepted or detected but once- likely to break public order in a brazen manner and panicking the community by show of force. In this view, the petitioner's detention cannot be castigat- ed as illegal. [194F-Gl Obiter : It is fair that persons kept incarcerated and embittered without trial should be given some chance to reform themselves by reasonable re- cour~e to the parole power under s. 15. Calculated risks. by release for short periods may, perhaps, be a social gain, the beneficient jurisdiction being wisely exercised. [195Fl ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 444 of 1974. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. 0. P. Mcdviya, for the petitioner. M. M. Kshatriya, and G. C. ,Chatterjee, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered. by KRISHNA IYER, J.-A single act of outrageous violence in a running train on February 16, 1973 by an armed gang, of which the petitioner was alleged t9 be a member, persuaded the District Magistrate of Nadia to direct his detention under sub-s. (1) (a)(ii) of s. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act XXVI of 1971) (hereinafter called the MISA, for short). The subsequent statutory requirements have been fulfilled impeccably and the only maior sub- 14- L379 Sup.C 175 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975) 3 S.C.R. mission of the petitioner is that on merit~, he is not guilty, that a case charge-sheeted against him has ended in a discharge and that a single incident is insufficient to constitute 'a. stream of tendency' warranting preventive detention. M.ost of the submisions urged have no force. The fact that the petitioner was discharged by a court for the :same crime does no bear o:i. the power to detain, nor are we impressed with the other arguments urged before us. Learned counsel Sri Malviya, appearing amicus curiae, strenuously contended that one swallow does not make a summer and likewise a solitary incident cannot imperil maintenance of internal security and so the order is bad. He relied on certain rulings of this Court and, rightly so. This Court has been vigilant to see that isolated offences are not exploited by executive authorities for clamping down preventive d1~ten tion,insouciantly to by-pass the normal judicial processes. But there is one exceptional category of cases where an only dangerous deviance may itself demonstrate its potentiality for continuing criminality and indicate previous practice, experiment and expertise. In such a narrow category oj' causes it is difficult to predicate abuse of power or absence of applicati-On of mind by the authority if preventive detention is directed solely on one specialised crime. In the present case the act imputed to the detenu is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.