LexMILAN BANIK versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H MILAN BANIK ~. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. March 26, 1974 [H. R. KHANNA AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 789 Maintet1af1c~ of Internal Securily A.ct-S. 3-Public Order-Meanlng of- W/ierher detention order can be passed for the sa1ne set of activities in respect of wlu"ch cases l1ad already been registered under Indian Penal Code. . The petitioner was detained under S. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Sccu· r!tY Act. 197 .1 on the grounds t~t on two occasions he along with other asso- ciates. committed robbery on p01nt of dagger in a town in West Bengal and snatc~ed away money and <?ther valuables. Such activities of the petitioner terronsed the local people and created a panli; in the area and the petitioner 'vas detained ~al-1;SC in the opi!lion of the Distri~t Magistrate, ht was acting in a manner pre1uc1al to the maintenance of publtc ordl!r. · In a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the detention was challenged on the following grounds :- (i) That the alleged activities for which tho peth tioner had been detained were not germane to public order; (ii) that tho names ~f all the associates of the Petitioner were not mentioned in the grounds of de- llon and as such the grounds should be held to be vague; (iii) that two cases were registered against the petitioner in respect of the ac1ivities mentioned in the grounds of detention and therefore for the same activities. the petitioner could not be detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, and (iv) that the period of the petitioner's detention has not been specified by the State Gov- ment and therefore ii is an infirmity in the detention order. Pismissing the petition, HEID : (i} The test for determining whether a particular activity affects law and order or whether it impinges upon public order is : Does it interfere with the current of life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of public order or does it affect merely .an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed in whiCh_ Case it would be an activity alfe<:ting law and order. f791 E-Fl Ka11u Biswas v. State of West Bengal [19731 1 S.C.R. 546 referred to. Keeping this test in view it was held that the activities of the petitioner bad the effect of disturbi'ng public order. 111 Re : Sus11anta Goswami & Ors. [1969] 3 S.C.R. 138 referred to and dis· tingu~hed. (ii) As regards vagueness of the- grounds, a pen1sal of the grounds of deten- tion shows that the date, time and place of the incidents were specified. Parti- culan were also given regarding the nature of the activities of the petitioner. The facts stated in the grounds of detention were sufficient to apprise the peti- tioner of the precise activities of the petitioner on account of which the order for detention had been made ilnd it cannot be said that the petitioner was in any way handicapped in making an effective representation against the detentiori order. What has- to be._s_een by the court is that the grounds of detention supplied to the petitionet should not be sO vague as to prevent him from making an effective representation. The• grounds of detention in the present case do not suffer from the infirmity Of vagueness. [792 A-Cl Sk. Hasan Ali v. State of West Be11gal A.LR. 1972 S.C. 2590 referred to. (iii) There is no legal bar for a District Magistrate to make an order for detention in respect of the same activities of the detenu for which cases had earlier been registered in a Criminal C.ourt, but in which cases be was discharged_ The detaining authority might well feel that though there - not sufficient evidence for securing conviction, the activities of the t>erson ordered 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1974] 3 S.C.l\. to be dcta~ned were of such a nature a~ to justify the order of detention. A [792F-Gl Mohd. Salim Khan v. Shri C. C. Bose and anather W.P. No. 435/71 decided on April 2S, 1972 referred to. (iv) Further, non-specification of an definite period in a detention order n1ade under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, .i.! not a material omission as would render the order to be invalid. [793 GJ Sunn Ullah v. State of I. & K. AIR 1972 SC 2431 and Ujagar Singh v. The B State Qf Punjab [19521 S.C.R. 756 referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 2023 of 1973. Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus. G. Narayana Rao, for the petitioner. Diiip Si
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.