GORA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 996 · Decided: 11-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

99fi 
GORA 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
December 11, 1974 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Maintenance of lllfernal Secmity Act., 1971, s. 3 (3 )-Delay between date 
.of incident and date of order and delay between date of order and dare of 
detention-Effect of-Public order, scope of-'Fort/11\'ith', meaning cf. 
The peti!loner was directed to be detained by an order of the Dist. 
Magistrate under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. with a view 
to preventing him from <icting in a manner prejudicial t!) the maintenance of 
public order. The order was made on December 29, 1973 •. and the fa::t of 
making the <>rder was reported to the State Government on January 2, 1974. 
He was arre$ted on Jan. 8, 1974. The ground8 of detention referred to only 
one incident, namely, that on· the night of 25 /26-6·73, the petitioner along 
with his associates being armed .with fire arms, raided a house, looted cash 
and ornaments, brutally ll'>saulted some of the inmates and fired indiscriminately 
as a result of which the houseown~r and his neighbour sustained 
gric:vous 
injurie; and subsequently died, 
· 
. The petitioner challen~ed the detention order in JI writ petition on the 
following grounds :-(1) There Wills a time la11 of 6 months 1'~twcen the date 
of the incid<mt and the date of order and hence the Dist. 
Ma.~istrate •:ould 
not have possibly aHived at his subjective satisfaction on the basis of that 
inCident. (2) the fa:ident merely affected law and order ~nd not public order, 
( 3) the District Magistrate had taken into account other material in the history 
sheet which was not disclosed to the petitioner, in arriving at his subjc:ctive 
satisfaction, 
( 4) 
there was a delay of 20 days in arres!ing the petitioner 
pu.rsuant to the order of detention, and ( 5) there was a delay of 5 day·; in 
.reporting the fact of making the order of detention to the State Government. 
Dismissin,g the writ ~titian, 
HELD·. (I) (a) There is no hard and fast rule that merely hccause there 
is a time lag of about 6 months between the 'offending acts' and the date 
of the order of detention the causal link must be taken to be broken and 
the ·satisfaction claimed to have been •arrived M by the Dist. Magistrate must 
be regarded as sham or unreal. Whether the 
acts of the 
detenu 
forming 
the basis of the subjective satisfaction are too remote in time must d•:pend 
on the facts of each case. The test of· proximity is not a rigid or mechnnic&l 
test to be blindly applied by merely counting the number of months be1:ween 
the two dates. The test is evolved by the c·ourt for determining the main 
question whether the past activity of the detenu is such that from it a reason-
able prognmns can be m11de as to· the foture ,:onduct of the· detenu. The 
prejudicial act :if the detenu may be of such a character as to sugirast that 
it is a part of an organised operation. and in such a case, the detaininl! authority 
may reasonably feel satisfied lhat the act which has come to light cannot be a 
solitary or· is<rlated act but must be part of a course of conduct of similar 
activities and that therefore. it is necessary to detain him with a view to 
preventing him from indulging in such activities in the future. [999 C-G] 
In the present case, .. t)J<l act was a daring act of dacoity in a village by 
!he .Petitioner's gang, and judged in its correct setting, it could not be a stray 
1sclated act bu.t must be tbi:, work of a habituated and hardened :riminal eh en 
to commit dacoities. and therefore, the Dist. Magistrate could reasonably :i\ive 
at a satisfa<:tion that with a view to p•eventinj! him from 
carryin~ on such 
activities, it was-necessary to detain him. [999 G-H] 
(b) Further. it was stated in the counter-affidavit that a criminal case 
was filed in the Magi,trates' court in connection ·with the identi:al inddent 
on lllne 26, J 973 and the petitioner was arrested but it 
was 
found 
that 
witnesf.es wc~re unwilling to r,ive evidence against hin1. 
The Dist. rv!agistrat·:!, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
p 
G 
H 
GORA WEST BENGAL (Bhagwati, /,) 
99T 
therefore, passed the order of detention in anticipation of the petitioner being· 
released as a result of dropping the crimin11<l case against him. The petitioner 
was discharged between January 3, 1974 and Jan, 18, 1974, and on the lntter 
date he was once again arrested pursuant to the order of detention. (1000 A·DJ. 
Go/am Hussai11 v. The Commissioner of Po

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