DAKTAR MUDI versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 61 · Decided: 16-09-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
A 
DAKTAR MUOI 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
September 16, 1974 
61 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, 
P. N. BHAGWATI, 
P. K. GOSWAMI AND, 
8 
R. S. SARKARIA; JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Preve11tlve detention-Grounds of detention communicated to detenu-Right 
·Of Court to examine record to see If a1<y other material influenced the suhjectil•e' 
satisfaction of detaining authority. 
· · 
· 
The petitioner wa-s detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 
1971. He was s~rvcd with the grounds for bis detention. In a petition cha!· 
lenging the detention the District Magistrate filed his counter affidavit stating that 
be boo passed the order of detention after being bona fide satisfied from the 
materials on record, that ii was necessary to detain him and that the grounds 
furnished to the detenu were the only grounds on which he based his satisfaction 
for making the order, though other materials were also placed before him. 
This Court wanted to look into the record in order to be satisfied that the 
other materials were not such as would have in any manner inftuenced the 
Di>trict Magistrate in arriving at a subjective satisfaction. 
On the contention of the respondent that this Court ought not to do so 
when the District Magistrate bad stated that he had arrived at the satisfaction 
only on the grounds mentioned in the detention order, 
HELD : There is a possibility that the materials on record would disclose .. 
activities of the detenu which were proximate and of a serious nature having .. 
nexus with the object of the Act. If such elements exist then this Court would 
be justified in taking the view that they must have influenced the subjective 
satisfaction of the detaining authority. This Court has held that where there 
are several grounds and if one ground is vague then it is difficult .to say whether 
the ground which is vague and in respect of which the detenu could not make 
an effective representation did not influence the mind of the detaining authority 
in arriving at the subjective satisfaction, and that the detention order would 
therefore be invalid If so, it would be equally invalid in a case where there 
are other materials on which the detaining authority could have been influenced 
in arriving at the subjective s!ltisfaction but which had not been mentioned in 
the grounds of detention nor communicated to the detenu. Hence, whether the· 
other materials on record bad any effect on the mind of the detaining authority 
cannot be accepted solely on his statement. bei:ause, that would be acceptiiig 
the mere ip9i dixit of the detaining a11ihority. 
[62E·64B) 
It may be that the record and bio data of the detenu may disclose material~ 
which have no nexus or proximity or are vague or, having regard to their 
nature or magnitude are not such as would have been considered by the detaining 
authority as essentiat In su~h a case the validity of the detention order would 
not be affected. [64B-C) 
G 
Jn the present case, the other materials are remote in time and have no 
H 
nexus with the object of detention, and if they had been stated in the 11rou11ds 
or communicated to the detenu, the detention would have been held invalid. 
The District Magistrate, therefore, quite rightly, did not rely on those other 
materials and was justified in his assertion that he did not do so. [64H-65B] 
ORIGINAL JuRISi>ICTION : Writ Petition No. 116 of 1974. 
(Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
Ravinder Banga, for the petitioner. 
Sukumar Basu & Co. for the respondent. 
•• 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 2 s.c.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. 
The petitioner challenges his detention 
under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 19i l, as being ille-
gal. 
He was arrested on July 20, 1972, and sent to 
Mictnapore 
Central Jail. 
On the same day he was served with the order of 
detention along with the grounds of his detention, which, inter alia, 
stated thus : 
"2. On 26-4-1972 between 14.35 hrs. and 14.45 hrs., 
you along with your associates attacked the box wagon of 
train No. D/N. 140-78 at through yard, Nimpura near east 
cabin Home Signal and looted away rice bags from the said 
wagon. Due to the act of yours the train suffered detention 
for about half. an hour. 
Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the main-
tenance of supplies and services essential to the community. 
3. On 28-5-72 at about 18.35 hrs., you along with your 
associates stopped goods train No

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.