LexNEEL & NIRENJAN MAJUMDAR versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E NEEL & NIRENJAN MAJUMDAR v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL May 23, 1972 [J. M. SllELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 675 Genual €/auses Act, 1897-Ss. F, 24-Eflect of-Arms Act. 1959 repealing and re-enacting A..rn1s A.ct, 1818-l\fotification issued urtdtr k1tter Act, if continue wuJer tlie l959~Act-Am1s Ac,, •Q59-S. 2(1) (c) PwMd, if 'anns'-West Bengal (Pl"evenl'ion of Vio,e1i· -A~,·•vitie,'Q .Act, 1970, s. 3(2)(d). The combined effeci of section 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act is that a notification of 1923 issued under section 15 of the Arm' Act, 1878 prohibiting the acquisition, possession or carrying of -arn1~ other than fire arms without a licence, not only continued to operate but has to be deemed to have been en2cted under the Arms Act, 1959, which repealed anil re-enacted the provisions of the earlier Act. The 1959 Act nowhere contains an intention to the contrary signifying that the operation of the repeated Act or of a notification issued thereunder was not to cbntinue. [678C"F] A sword is arms within the meaning of the definition of 'arms' in sectioa 2(1 )(c) of the Arms Act, 1959. In the present c.sc though the offence of being in possession and carrying a s\IKlrd without lieence took place after 1he commencement of the new Act of 1959, the notification issued under the Act of 1878 was in force, hy virtue of section 24 of the General Clauses Act, on the date of the alleged offence. The offence thu> fell under the arms Act, 1959, and that being •o, the .acts set out in the grounds of detention served on the petitioner were covered by dame ( d) of sec,ion 3(2) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Vi>Jlent Ao'ivities) Act, 1970. [677D·H; 6780-H; 679F] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 77 or 1972. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for. a writ in the F nature of habeas corpus. G H S. K. Dhingra, for the petitioner. Dilip Sinha and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. The District Magistrate, Howrah passed on June 12, 1971 the impugned order of detention under sub-s. (1) read with sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 directing the petitioner's detention there- under. The order stated that the :Oistrict Magistrate was satis- fied that it was neceSS!\fY to do so in order to preve.nt the peti- ti!>n~r from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of pubhc order. On June 13, 1971, the petitioner was accordingly arrested and detained in Dum Dum Central Jail. 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973] l 5.C.R .. 1 he _grounds of detention served on the i;e!itioner at ·the time of his arrest ~ead as follows : · (1) On 17-8-70 at about 02.00 hours, you and your associates Bhaja alias Tarapaoa Ghosh, Bablu, Karlie and others attacked the members of R.G. Party who were on duty near Jatadhari Park by hurling bambs towa~ds them. When chased by them, you and your associates again hurled bombs· towards them and managed to escape and thereby · disturbed public order. (2) On 10-4-71 at about 16.00 hours, you and your associates being armed with sword assaulted one Basudeb Laha of 56/18, Banarjee Bagan Lane at Sambhu Halder Lane near Jatadhari Park causing injuries on his person. When objected. by the members of the public, you also terrorised them by brandishing the sword. (3) On 1-5-71 at 15.00 hours, you and your associates Tapan, Kartic and others being armed with bombs and other deadly weapons demanded money from one Banshi Show of 28, Haraganj Road, P.S. Mali- panchghora. When refused, you and your asso- ciates assaulted him. The local people and the neighbouring shop keepers ottlected. At this you and your associa'~·~s became more violent and terror- ised them by throwing bombs towards them. Con- sequently. they became panicky and fled away. D· c: E, Sub-s. (1) read with sub-s. (3) of s. of the Act authorises inter a/ia a District M~gi~trate ·to direct detention of ·any person in res- pect of whom he is satisfied that such detention should be ordered V with a view to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the security of the _State of West Bengal, or the maintenance of public order. Sub-s. (2) of s. 3 contains a special definition of the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order" to mean the acts enumerated in els. (a) to ( e) thereof. Cl. ( d)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.