LexKRISHNA LAL DUTTA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A e c D E F. G H KRISHNA LAL DUTTA l'. THE STATE OF WEST BEN'GAL Ftbruary 21. 1974. [M. H. BEG AN!) R. s. SARK.ARIA, JJ.J H9 P1eventive dete11tio,r-Matters tOktn ·into qccount for ordering dett•nJion- Duty to commu11ictJtt to detenu to enable him to' explain. . The Drder detaining the petitioner under the Maintenance o! Internal ~urity Act, 1971, mentioned the sole ground that on the nil!ht of October 1 r. 1972~ the .petitioner .and his associates committed theft- of some tea chests from a- runiiing goods trdin and that they 6cd, when challenged, leaving behind three cheSts of tea at the P.O. In his pet:don for the isSue of a writ of habeas· corpus the petitioner contended that it was i_mpossible to commit theft from ._ running train as described. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that what was meant by running train was a train which had come to a stop due to some traffic restriction. It was also stated that the petitioner was a noto~ riqus wagon breaker operating near the Railway Station, but this allegation was never communicated to the petitioner. E'letr the record relating to the detention nowhere referred to the petitioner as a 'notorious wagon breaker'. Jn the record the incident of 11th October was mentioned, a description of th,!;,. modus operandi of a gang of thieves operating on· passenger trains ~as g1Yen. ·and it was . also mentioned that the activities of that gang commenced after the incident of 11th October. There was however no· indication as to how any information whatsoever came to the District Magistrate, who passed the order of detention, from any source whatsoever that the petitioiier was a member. of that gang. · · Allowina the petition, HELD : The Court is not concerned with the_ adequacy or sufficiency of \l. ~nd of detention. Jn the present case, there is clear nexus between the sole· grc)und for detention given and the maintenance of the eSsenti81 supplies and services. but the ground is vague in so far as it is not apparent what is meant by the words "the P.O." The grounds given could not enable the petitioner to cffectivefy exercise bis constitutional right of 1naking a representation against bis detention. Further. matters which were nevtr oommunicated to the petitioner have been taken into account while ordering the detention. Presuming that what- ever was in the record operated against the petitioner be should have been given fuller information of the aUegations against him. No explanation has been given as to why that was not done. [452 D-0] [Those exercising drastic pawers of preventive detention should at least take care to ascertain whether a detention is being ordered in a manner and on materials which di:11clo.111e that it is really necessary to order a detention with a view .to preventiniz the person to be detained from acting in a manner pre· judicial to the objects for which preventive detention may be lawfully ordered.l [452 C-Dl Prabhu Dayal Deord.h v. District Magistrate, Kamrup &: Ors., A.T.R. 1974 S.C. 183, followed. ORl\HSAL JUR1so1cTION : Writ Petition No. 845 of I9n. Under Art 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ .in the nature of habeas corpus. S. N, lain, for the paitioner. P. K. Chakravarty and G. s. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 45(} SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974 1 3 S.C.R. 1'hc Judgment of the <:ourt was. delivered l>y BEG, J. The petitioner, a citizen: of India; has filed this habear corpus petition c;hallenging the order of . his. detention, dated 2~rll-19n, passi'd. under Section 5 cfause <ai of Maintenance of Internal Sccurit} Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It appears that the petitioner was actually arrested on 20-11,1972 and that the. detention order was passed subsequently on 24-11-1972, and; on that very" d'ate, the .petitioner was served with the- document containini; the sole ground of detentlQD given as foflows :- "I. That on 11-1(};72 at' about 01.55 hrs., you alona with your associates. being armeld with bombs and other weapons, victimised wagon No. NR ) 739:3 Ex Bro to KPD attached to. runnin~ j!Oods train in ·EC 249 DN near the Booster Sub-station df Dum Dum Jn. RIS when the train slowed down for traffic restriction and. committed theft in respect of tea chests. Train guard RPF party challenged you and your associates when you hurled bombs towards the RPF party. RPF RK Sitaram Rai fired one r.ound in self defence when yo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.