LexGOPAL BAURI versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BURDWAN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'A
197
GOPAL BAURI
v.
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BURDWAN AND OTHERS
January 17, 1975
B
[V. R. KRISHNA IYl!R, P. K. GOSWAMI AND R. R. SARKARIA, JI.]
c
D
E
F
G
Me1/111e1u111ce of /11/trnal Security Act, (26 of 1971), Stctlon 3(2) read with
s11b·scctlo11 ( 1 )-Recovery of tlie stolen articles from one of thr dettnu's as.vo.
elates weiglllng wi1/I District Magistrau i11 making the impugned order-Omi~.1/011
to disclose t/1e name of associate 111 the grounds1 whether amo1mts de11la'/ of
opportunity to the petitioner to represent agal11s1 111e order of detention.
The petitioner was ·arrested on March 26, 1973, in connection with two inci·
dents of theft said to have been committed by him on 20th and 21st March, 1973.
He was released by the Court on bail on the same day. The police, however, in
due course submitted the final report and the accused was.discharged on July 22,
1974.
But .the respondent made the impugned order of detention on June 25,
1973 under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Main·
tcnance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order was made in order to prevent
the petitioner from 11cting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of su]iplies
and services essential to the community. The petitioner was detained in pursu-
ance of that order on July 13, 1973. The grounds which have been furnished
to the detenu describe the occurrence of two successive days, namely 20th and
· 21st March, 1973. In the counter-affidavit submitted by the respondent it Is stated
thaf both the acts stated in the grounds of detention were committed by the de·
tenu along with his associates in quick succession In the course of these successive
days.
.
·
Allowing the petition under Article 32 challenging the order of detention,
HELD : The '\three" successive incidents may include reference to the recovery
of some stolen ball bearings from the possession of "one of your associates on
23-3-1973". Even so, it was absolutely necessary to communicate to the detenu
the name ctf the particular associate from whose possession the recovery of the
stolen articles, the subi.ect matter of the thefts disclosed in the two grounds, was
made. Since the sin of the recovery from "one of your associates" visits the de-
tenu against whom a prejudicial inference has been made by the detaining autho-
rity· resulting in his subjective satisfaction in making the impugned order, omis-
sion to disclose the name of the associate in the grounds amounts to denial of an
effective opportunity to the petitioner to represent against the order. [l99B·E)
In this case either the District Magistrate did not know .the name of the as-
sociate for which alone it was not possible for him to. disclose it to the detenu
or knowing the same he. has refrained from furnishing it to tht: detenu. · In the
first case bis subjective satisfaction was influenced by an unreal and non-existent
material circumstance, the Diatrict Magistrate not having considered whether the
associate could be in fact an associate of the detenu. In the second case a reason·
able opportunity has not been given to the detenu to know a very relevant and
material particular in the grounds to afford making an effective representation
against the order. In either case the order will be reckoned as invalid under the
law. [199H]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 406 of 1974.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution).
H
M. Qamaruddin, A.C., for the Petitioner.
Prodvot Kumar Chakravarti, and G. S. Chatterjee of Sukumar
Basu & .Co. for the respondents.
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975j 3 s.c,R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GosWAMI, J.-This application for a writ of habeas corpus under
Article 32 of the Constitution arises out of an order of detention Jitadc
on June 25, 1973, by the District Magistrate Burdwan under sub-
section {1) read with sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Maintenance
of Internal Se<:urity Act, 1971. The order was made in order to
prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the main-
tenance of supplies and service~ essential to the community. The
groumts on which the said order is based are as follows :-
" (1) On 20-3-73 night at about 01.00 hrs. you with your
other associates committed theft of ball bearings and
wheels of w~ bucket carriage& of the rope-way lines
m~ar Harishpur village and the supply of sand to the
collieries was suspended. By such act you adversely
affExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.