NARESH CHANDRA GANGULI versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 20-05-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

< , 
S.O.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
411 
NARESH CHANDRA GANGULI 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS 
(and connected petition) 
(B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, 
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Preventive Detention-Object and ground of such detention-
Distinction·-Ground, Meaning of-Copy of order to be served on 
detenu-Contents-Preventiw Detention Act, r950 (4 of r950), 
SS. 3, 7. 
The appellant was detained under s. 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Pre-
ventive Detention Act, 1950. The copy of the grounds of the ~ 
order of detention served on him stated that he was detained as 
he had been acting in a way prejudicial to the maintenance of 
public order as evidenced by the particulars stated in its four 
paragraphs. Paragraph 1 stated, inter alia, that the appellant 
had, in a meeting of the refugees vilified the Prime Minister of 
India for his unsympathetic attitude towards the sufferings of 
the refugees and gave expression to violent feelings regarding his 
person while referring to the recent Nehru-Noon Pact; para-
graph 2 stated that he called upon the members of his party to 
build up a strong movement against the implementation of the 
pact and tried to rouse passion by alleging the Prime Minister 
had no sympathy for West Bengal; paragraph 3 stated that at 
another meeting he denounced the pact and stressed the need of 
forming a militia with the youths of the country for the safety 
of the people living in border areas and paragraph 4, that he 
intended to proceed to Delhi on the date mentioned, and was 
likely to instigate plans endangering the personal safety of the 
Prime Minister. The High Court, on an application under ss. 491 
and 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the issue of a 
writ of habeas corpus, while upholding the order of detention, held 
that the said paragraphs were really ·not the grounds of deten-
tion but merely pieces of evidence on which the only ground of 
detention, namely, acting in a manner prejudicial to the mainten-
ance of public order, was based, that paragraph 4 was merely an 
inference of fact having a bearing on the ground of detention. It 
was contended, inter alia, on appeal that paragraph 4 was 
extremely vague and devoid of particulars, and that the allega-
tions made had no rational connection with the objects mention-
ed in s. 3 of the Act and so he was deprived of his right to make 
an effective representation. All this was, however, denied on 
behalf of the State. 
Held, that the High Court had overlooked the difference 
between the objects of d()tention specified in els. (a) and (b) of 
s. 3(1) of the Act and the statement of facts which constitute 
the grounds envisaged by s. 7 of th~ Act. 
z959 
11fay zo 
I959 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
Sections 3 and 7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, read 
together, contemplate that the copy of the order passed by the 
Nare;h Chandm ·detaining authority under s. 3(2) of the Act to be served on the 
Ganguli 
v. 
Tlie SloU of 
West Bengal 
an& Others 
Sinha J. 
detenu should contain, (1) a· preamble reciting in terms one or 
more of the sub-clauses of els. (a) and (b) of s. 3(1) as its object or 
objects, (2) the grounds contemplated by s. 7, namely, the conclu-
sions of fact, which Jed to the passing of the order' of detention, 
informing'the detenu as to why he was detained, and (3) parti-
culars, if and where necessary, but not those referred to in sub-
ss. (3) and (4) of s. 3 of the Act. 
In the instant case, however, the error of confusion made by 
the High Court could not invalidate its order since the grounds 
of detention, characterised by the High Court as recitals of fact, 
read together, were in no.way ambiguous, indefinite or irrelevant 
• to the object of the detention, namely, the maintenance of public 
order and did not deprive the detenu of his right of representa-
tion. 
· 
The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya [1951] S.C.R. 
167, considered. 
Dwarka Das Bhatia v. The State of Jammu Kashmir. [1956] 
S.C.R. 948, held inapplicable. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 59 of 1959. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 
January 8, 1959, of the Calcutta High Court in Crimi-
nal Misc. Case No. 126 of 1958. 
AND 
PETITION No. 51 QF 1959. 
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India 
for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
Veda Vyasa, S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, for the 
appellant and petitioner. 
B. Sen and P. K. Bose, for the res
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.