LexNARAYAN DEBNATH versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D E F G NARAYAN DEBNATH v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL September 13, 1974 57 (P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] Mai11te11ance of lntemal Security Act, 1971, s. 3.-;Scopc ?f inqu_iry by Court in a peti1io11 chal/e11ging detention-Armed robbery 111 r1111111ng tra111-lf affects public order. The petitloner was detained under s. 3, Maintenance of Internal Security A_ct, 1971, on the sole ground that on 16-2-1973 at about 10 p.m. _he, a.Jong_ w:~h Ms a;sociates, being armed with guns. _and ot~er weapons. ~~mm1tted da~o1ty m a third class compartment of a running tram. In a petition challenging the detention order the District Magistrate stated in his co1,mter ~ffidavit that. he based his subjective satisfaction only on the ground mentioned m the detention order although other. materials .were placed before him. The Court t~er~fo.re. examined the record and the history sheet of the detenu and held, d1sm1ssm~ · the petition, that " ( 1) The ground on which the detention order had been made would rea.;an- ab!y give. rise to a bonafide satisfaction in the mind of the detaining authcrity that such incident~ were likely to be repeated in the same manner and that those who were alleged to have taken part in even a single incident of su~h magnitude had to .be detained in order that the tempo of peace in public life was not jeopardised. A careful examination of the record and the history sh~et showed, having regard to the grave na·ture of the act committed by the detenu, that the District Magistrate wa» bonafidc satisfied that the said Act was sufficient for making the detention order. [58F-G; 60A-B] (2) It could not be contended unless the facts stated in the ground< are proved to the satisfaction of the Court, no action can be taken under the Act. It is because that the act complained of cannot be saii;fa:torily proved in a Court of law or that the witnesses are unwilling to come forward being already terrified by the enormity of the act perpetrated that action has to be t~ken under the Act to prevent further commission of offen:es of similar nature. [58G-HJ Besides. the scope of inquiry in a case of this nature is very limited. The Court has to assume the grounds to be true and it is not its function to examine the truth or otherwise of the allegations mentioned in the grounds. [58HJ (3) It could not also be -:ontended that the matter merely affects law and order but not public order. When an armed robbery or dacoity is alleg·~d to have been commuted by the petitioner armed with guns and with his associates similarly armed, in a running train, it no longer remains a matter of· simpilc law and order as the peaceful tempo of life of the community at large is nlso affected thereby. It not only puts the passengers from various places and walks of life in the particular third class compartment in fear, but puts the passen<cer. ~f the entire train a~d ~Ven of otb~r rnnni~g tr&ins in panic. · Public order n·nd hfe of the community is thereby clearly d1stu.rbed anct that amounts to public disorder which had to be prevented by action under the Act. [59A-Dl Subal Chandra Ghosh v. State of West Ben~al, A.l.R. 1972 S.C. p. 2146, A run. Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [1970] 3 S.C.R. 288, Ram Mmu>har Lohia's case m r19661 f S.C.R. 709. followed. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 305 of 1974. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. H G. Narayana Rao, for the petitioner. Sumitra Chakravarty, G. S. Chatterjee and S. K. Basu, for the resp.on dent. 58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS )975] 2 s.c.R. The Judg:ment of the Court was delivered by GosWAMI J.-The petitioner has been detained u/s 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (briefly the Act) (in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance . of public order. The order was passed by the: District Magistrate Nadia, on 11-4-73. The ground on which the: order was founded is as follows :- 1. "That on 16•2-73 in between 10.08 hours and 10.14 hours you along with your other associates being armed with gun and other weapons committed a decoity in a 3rd clas~ compartment of running train S. 110 On. between Habibpur. R. S. and Lakinarayanpur junction R.S. in Ranaghat- Shantipur section and snatched away cash of Rs. 30,000/- frorn Shri Ashutosh Pal of Calcutta causing bullet injuries to him and putting all passengers to fear of death. Your action caused con
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.