KESHAV NILKANTH JOGLEKAR versus THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, GREATER BOMBAY

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 653 · Decided: 17-09-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
KESHA V NILKANTH JOGLEKAR 
v. 
653 
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, GREATER 
BOMBAY 
(and connected petitions) 
[S. R. DAS C.J., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA, 
S. K. DAs and GovINDA MENON JJ.] 
Preventive detention-Detention order by the Commissioner of 
Police-Duty to report forthwith to the State Government-" Forth-
with", J1feaning of-Time tak-,n for sending report-Validity of de-
tention-Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (IV of 1950), ss. 3(3), 7. 
Section 3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, provides 
that when an order of detention is made by an officer mentioned in 
s. 3(2) he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government 
together with the grounds on which the order has been made ..... . 
and no such order ...... shall remain in force for more than twelve 
days after the making thereof unless in the meantime it has been 
approved by the State Government. 
On 13th January 1956 the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, 
passed orders under s. 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, 
directing the detention of the petitioners and in pursuance thereof 
they were arrested on 16th January 1956 
The grounds on which 
the orders were made were furnished to the petitioners on 20th 
January 1956 and the next day the Commissioner reported the fa.ct 
of the order and the grounds therefor to the State Government, 
which approved of the same on 23rd January 1956. The pet.itioners 
contested the validity of the detention on the ground that when the 
Commissioner passed the orders for detention on 13th January 1956 
it was his duty under s. 3(3) to report that fact forthwith to the 
State Government, and as he did not do so until 21st January 1956, 
he had acted in contravention of the statute and that the detention 
was therefore illegal. It was found that the delay in sending the 
report could not have been a.voided by the Commissioner and that 
it was due to causes to which the petitioners had very largely con-
tributed. 
Held, that the word "forthwith" in s. 3(3) of the Preventive 
Detention Act, 1950, has not a fixed and an absolute meaning and 
it must be construed with reference to the object of the section and 
the circumstances of the case. It cannot mean the same thing as "as 
soon as may be" in s. 7 of the Act and the former is more peremp-
tory than the latter. The difference between the two expressions 
lies in this that while under s. 7 the time that is allowed to the 
authority to send the communication to the detenu is what is 
reasonably convenient, under s. 3(3) what is allowed is only the 
1956 
September 17 
654 
SUPREME COURT RE.PORTS 
[1956] 
1956 
period during which he could not, withoub any fault of his own, 
send the report. 
/(eshav Nilkanth 
. 
. 
, 
J gl k 
An act which is to be done forthwith must be held to have 
oear 
b 
d 
h""d 
"h 
een so 
one w en it is one wit 
all reasonable despatch and 
The Co;::,,is$iouer without avoidable delay. 
of Police, Greater 
The Queen v. The Justices of Bei·kshire ([1878-79] 4 Q.B.D. 469), 
Bombay 
Hudson and others v. Hill and others ([1874] 43 L. J. C.P. 273), 
and R•g. v. Pri<M, (S-Moore P.O. 203), relied on. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Petitions Nos .. 102, 105 
to llO of 1956. 
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution for 
writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus. 
N. C. Chatterjee, Sadhan Chandra Gupta and 
Janardhan Sharma, for petitioners in Petitions Nos. 
102, 105 to 108 of 1956. 
Sadhan Chandra Gupta and Janardhan Sharma, 
for petitioners in Petitions Nos. 109 and 1JOof1956. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India, Porus 
A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for respondents in Peti-
tions Nos. 102 and 105 of 1956. 
Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for respondents 
in Petitions Nos. 106 to llO of 1956. 
1956. September 17. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was. delivered by 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-These are petitions filed 
under article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of 
writs in the nature of habeas corpus. They arise on 
the same facts and raise the ;same questions. 
On 13-1-1956 the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, 
passed orders under section 3(2) of the Preventive 
Detention Act IV of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 
the Act), directing the detention of the present peti-
tioners, and pursuant thereto, they were actually 
arrested on 16-1-1956. The grounds on which the 
orders were made were formulated on l~-l-1956, and 
communicated to the petitioners the next day. On 
21-1-1956 the Commissioner reported
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.