LexMOTILAL JAIN versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
MOTJLAL JAIN
v.
STATE OF BIHAR .t ORS.
March 27, 1968
(1. C. SHAH, S. M. Soou, R. S. BACllAWAT, G. K. MITTER,
C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND K. S. HEGDE, 11.]
Preventive Detention Acl (4 of 1950), sa. 3(l)(a)(li/) and 4-
Se.veral grount!s in order of detention--Some vague and non-exi.rtent-
WMther order can be sustained,
· C
The appellant-a partner in a grocery shop, was detained under s.
3(l)(a)(iii) and s. 4 of the Preventive Detenfion Act for indulgiDg in
black-marketing of essential COllllllodities. He was supplied with an order
detailing a number of groµnds In support of his detention. In one of the
arounds viz., cl. (a) of tlie order the name of the shopkeeper to whOlll
the ~t
was said to have sold ·match boxes and soap "at a ,price
higher than that fixed for these C0111modities" was not mentioned. Neither
the price fixed nor, the priee at which it was said to have been sold was
D
mentioned.
In another ~round vk.,.cl. (d) of the order a sale was alleged
to K who was not e><istina in the 'described locality.· On the questi0n of
the validity of the order of detention, this Court,
E
F
H
HELD : Tho order must be set aside.
The gi'ound mentioned ill cl. (a) was .vague. The futility of making
representation in respect of an unknown man and of an ~ified price
can easily be imagined.
There waa no OllP<'rtilllity to the ap'pellant' to
l8lilfy the Advilory. ~
that .the alleged putchaaer was a :fictitious
figure or that he ls an enemy of his or that the information given by him
s!Jould otherwile be not accepted. [590 c.B]
. Furth«, there· was nothing to show that the Government had either
fixed the sale price of the commodities or it ·had any power to do so.
Therefore the gfoulld in cl •. (a) wils not only vague but also irrele\>ant.
The ground mentioned in cl. (d) was. non....istenL The. State's e>t-
planation. that the sale was made to K of ·another 1ocality and dne to
typographical mistake the locality . wss wrongly described wss ~
lbat apart, the appellant could not have made any ~l\tation in res-
pect of the such a new allegation against him.
·
The State's coiltention ·that even if the ·grounds .mentioned in els. {a)
and (d) are if11ored, still the 'detention of the appellant could be justi&ed
oa the remain~ grounds mentioned in that Order, Was wholly untenable.
The defects noticed in the two grounds 'vit, els.· (a)' and (d) w«e sufii-
cient · io vitiate . the order o! detention impugned· In . these proceedinp as
it was not .possible to . hold that those grounds could not have influenced
the decision of. the detaining authority.
The constitutional requil'ement
that the grounds must not be vigue must be satisfied .with respect to each
of the rrounds C!)inmuilii:ated to !lie perion detained snbjeq to the claim
of privilege under cl. ( 6) of Art. 22 of the Constitution, and where one
of the grounds mentioned is "81!\l~. even !bough other grounds are not
vague lbe detention iS .·nat in accordante with the procedure esta~lished
by law ind la tbetdfdle. lllOiat [S9t · .,. C.DJ.
L7,!laP.Cl/68--13
.
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1968] 3 S.C.R.
Dr. Ram Kris/um B//ardwr.j v, State of Delhi, [i9S3] S.C.R.
708,
S//ibban Lal Saksenr. v. State of U.P. [1954] S.C.R. 418, Dwarka Dass
Bhatia\'. State of Janunu and Kash1nir, (1956] S.C.R. 948 and Rameshwar
Lal Pmwr.ri v. State of Bihar, [19~8] 2 S.C.R. SOS, followed,
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 34 of 1968.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated
December 15, 1967 of the Patna High Court in Crl. W.J.C.
No. 92 of 1966.
M. C. Chagla, A. N. Sinha and B. P. Jha, for the appellant
U. P. Singh, for respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J. In this appeal by special leave, the question for
decision is whether the appellant's detention under sub-cl. (iii)
ofcl. (a) ofsub-s. (1) ofs. 3 andofs. 4ofthePreventiveDeten·
tion Act, 1950, (IV of 1950 )--to be hereinafter refen-ed to as
"the Act", as per order of the Governor of Bihar No. A-DE-Pur-
1501/67-6357 /G dated September 25, 1967, is unlawful.
The appellant is a partner in the grocery shop by name "Shanti
Stores" in Gulab Bagh where sugar, maida, soap, match boxes,
kerosene oil and other articles are sold.
He is said to have in-
dulged in black-marketing in essential commodities. As per
the order of September 27, 1967 grounds in support of the appel·
lant's detention were supplied. They tead as foExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.