LexLAWRENCE JOACHIM JOSEPH D'SOUZA versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1956 MosebKaka Chowd/lry alias Moseb Chowdhry and another v. The State of West Bengat J agannadhada$ J. 1956 April 24 382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956] necessitate a retrial, is one that ought to be put for- ward at the earliest stage and at any rate at the time of the regular appeal in the High Court. This cannot be entertained for the first time in an appeal on spe- cial leave. For all the above reasons this appeal is dismissed. LA WREN CE JOACHIM JOSEPH D'SOUZA v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY. [S. R. DAS, C.J., JAGANNADHADAS, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.] Preventive Detention-Espionage activity-GrO'Unds whether vague-Vagueness due to non-disclosure of facts in public interest-- Whether vitiates order-Claim of privileg.-When slumld be oom- municated-Mala fides. Appellant was detained under s. S(l)(a)(i) of the Preventive Detention Act, Act IV of 1950 on the gronnds that with the finan- cial help given by the Portuguese anthorities he was carrying on espionage on their behalf with the help of underground workers and that he was also collecting intelligence about the security arrange- ments on the border area and was ma.king suoh intelligence available to the Portuguese authorities. Appellant made no application to the Government for further particulars. Held, that in these circumstances and having regard to the fact that what is alleged is espionage activity, the grounds could not be considered to be vague. In answer to the objection in the writ application before the High Court that the grounds were not specific and that no pa.rti- cular of the alleged activities of the appellant were given the Under Secretary to the Government in his affidavit claimed privilege under Art. 22(6) of the Constitution. Held, that the right of the detenue to be furnished particulars is subject to the limitation under Art. 22(6). Hence even if the grounds are vague due to the reason that facts cannot be disclosed in the public interest, the order of detention cannot be challenged ~n the ground of such vagueness. The necessity of communicating the decision to claim privilege under Art. 22(6) would arise only when the detenue asks for parti- S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 383 culars. In the absence of any such request by the detenue, the non- communication of the decision cannot be held to have hampered his constitutional right to make his representation. Mala fides must be made out against the detaining authority and not against the police. The contention of mala fides is unten- able in the present case having regard to the nature of the grounds and to the nature of the activities imputed to the appellant. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1955. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 9th August 1955 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No. 726 of 1955. M. R. Parpia, J.B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, for the appellant. M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1956. April 2,4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHADAS J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing an application made to it under article 226 of the Constitution. These proceedings relate to the validity of an order of detention passed by the Government of Bombay on the 8th June, 1955, against the appellant before us, who is an Advocate of the High Court of Bombay having a standing of about thirty years. He was in the Indian Air Force as an emergency Commissioned Officer between 1943 to 1948 and thereafter on extension for another four years until he attained the age of 55. It appears that he was also interested in journalism and in public affairs. On his own showing, he was concerned over the political future of Goa and "was opposed to any attempts at intimidation of Indian residents of Goan origin by other political groups and has freely ex- pressed these views in his journalistic articles". He was arrested on the 9th June, 1955, and is in deten- tion since then under the impugned order, which runs as follows: 1956 Lawrence Joachim Joseph D"Souza v. The State of Bombay 1956 Lawrtnce Joachim josejJ!i D'Soiuta v. The State of Bombay J agannadhadas J, 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956] "No. P. D. A. 1555A. Political and Services Department, Secretariat, Bombay, 8th June, 1955. ORDER. Whereas t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.