LexKANU BISWAS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
546 KANU BISWAS ·v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL May 3, 1972 [J. M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.) Maintenance of Internal se,·urity Adt (26 of 1971), S. 3-Maintenancc 'IOj ptthtic order,' scope of, The petition·.;:r and hb assocj~tes attacked · .a hushand and wit!; with dpell .lmive; in the ....- third .. class · co !'J1larttncnt · of a !_llnniiig traio w robbed them of valuable property by putting them ,nt'fear of death 'OR ·l)lle occasion, and on another occasion, attack!W a police party oo &be plllitforin of a railway station wit~ bombs, daJger~. knives and iron rods and exploded bombs with a view to kill the police party. Tt·" petitioner was. deta:n:d hv un order under s. 3 of the Maintenan~ of Internal Security Act. 1971 with a view to preventing him from actin2 in 11ny ltl1lnner prejudicial to t~e maintenance of public order, and tlr.! wownds of detention were that the two incidencts created terror aM panic among passenger; and disturbed public order. Tr.r! petitioner challenged the order of detention in this Court.- Dismissing the petition. HELD : Beth the incidents referred to in the order affect~d public order and not rt~erelv law and order. [550 E-FJ The question whether <t man only committ·~d a breach of law and order or has act-ed in a manner likely to cause disturbance of the public order, is a question -of dcgr·:!c and tl'!e extent of the reach of the act upon the society. The test to be adopt.cd in determinin~ whett.er an act affects law and order or public order is : Does it lead to. distur· bance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the Public or~r· or does it aff.ect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed ? When two paS9!n- gers are robbed at the point of knives while travelling in a third class compartment of -a running train the act affects not only the passen- gers who ar•.! deprived of their valuables but also the other· passengers who are watching in ft~a'r as helpless spectators. Likewise, . the attack against the police pM'ty on the platform of a railway station by explod- ing bombs is bound .to create panic and confusion among the passen- gers at the railway station. Consequently, there is bound ·to be terror and panic amongst the travelling pu!>lic. Therefore, th:: acts in ques- tion, in the very nature of things, would adversely affect the even tempo of liti! of the community and cause a general disturbance of · public tranquillity. [550 A-Fl Tapan Kumar Mukherjee and ors. v. State of We.r~ Btngal, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 840. followed. Dr. RG.m Ma11ohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 70.9, .Arun Ghosh v. State ·Of We'l•t Bengal, [1970] 3 S.C.R. 288, Nagendra Nath Mondal'v . State of West Bengal, [19721 1 S.C.C. 498. Nand/al Roy @ Nonda Dulal Roy @ Pagla v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. A B c D E F G 15 of 1972, decid~ on March 11, 1972. Sudhir Kumar Saha v. Com- H missioner of Police Calcutta and Anr., [19701 3 S.C.R. 360 a·nd S. K . Kader v. Sta:e of West Bef!gal, W.P. 35 of 1967 ~cided on May 2. 1972, referred to. ~· 0 E G H IA~m BtSWAS "·· STATB (Kir•~tra, 1.) O..to~NAL lURl'SDICT~oN : Wtit PetitiOh No. 46 'Of J 972. S. K. BaSK~', for the petition.er. Pradyot Kumar Chakravarty and G. 's. Chattuju, for the tespondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K~ 1. This is a petition through jail under article 32 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of habeas cor:iws by Kanu Biswas, who has been ordered by the District Magistrate 24- .Parganas to be detained under seption 3 of the Maintenance of Internal ,Security Act, 1971 (A~t 26 of 1971) "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order." The order of detention was made by the District Magistrate on November 13, 1971. The petitioner was arrested in pursuance of the detention order on November 14, 1971 and was· served the same day with the order as well as the grounds of detention to- . gether with vernacular translation thereof.' On November 18, 1971 the District Magistrate sent r~port to the State Government about the passing of the detention order along with the grounds of detention and other necessary particulars. The State Government considered the matter and approved the detention order on Nov- ember 24, 1971, Necessary 'report was also sent on that day by the State Government to the Central Government. On Dece
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.