RAM RANJAN CHATTERJEE versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 301 · Decided: 22-01-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[) 
E 
F 
RAM RANJAN CHATTERJEE 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
January 22, 1975 
301 
(V. R. KRISHNA IYER, P. K. GOSWAMI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Mai11te111111ce of Internal Security Act, 1971-Pre1•e11til'e Dcte111io11-Disti11c-
tio11 between Public order and Law cmd Order. 
The petitioner challenged the order of his detentiO'n made 11nder section 3 of 
the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 
The 
Ofder was 
founded on 3 
grounds. 
First, the petitioner exploded a bomb. in which one person died in 
a thickly populated area which created panic amongst the local people and he 
threatened the local people to see that they did not inform the Police. Secondly. 
the petitioner and his associates tried to extort on pain of instant death groeery 
from a shop keeper. 
As a result customers fled away for fear of their lives 
and all sboPS in the bazar closed down immediately. Thirdly, bombs were reek· 
lessly hurled at the villagers, causing panic and disn1ption. 
The petitioner conttnded : 
(I) That the grounds mentioned in the detention order are not relevant to 
public order. They concerned law and order only. 
(2) That the ·impugned order was passed mechanically without application 
of mind. 
Dismissing the petition. 
HELD : Qualitatively the acts which affect law and order are not <lifferent 
from the acts which affect public order. It is. the potentiality of the act to disturb 
the even tempo of the life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the 
maintenance of public order. If the contravention in its effect is confined only 
to a few individuals. directly involved as distinguished from· a wide spectrum of 
the public, it would raise a problem of law and order only. It is the length, ma-
gnitude and the intensity of the terror-wave unleashed bv a particular emption 
of disorder that helps dbtinguish it as an a,:t affecting public order from that con. 
cerning law and order. The instances in question were seriom enough to cause 
panic and disruption of even flow of life in the locality. Counter-affidavit clearly 
states .hat the prosecution against the n"titioner could not succeed because the 
witne,.ses were not prepared to give evidence for fear of !heir lives. [304 D·GJ 
Held forther. that the detention order in question was pa·;s·ed after du·~ con· 
sidcr:ition of all relevant grounds. [309 G] 
ORTGT'\'AT_. JmuSQJCTION: 
Writ Petition No. 476 of 1974. 
(Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution). 
G 
S. K Sinha A.C., for the. Petitioner. 
H 
D. N. Mukherjee a11d G. S:· Chatterjee of S11k11mar Basu & Co., 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SARKARIA, J-The petitioner, Ham Ranjan Chatterjee, challenges 
the order of his detention dated 8 .12. 1973 made under s. 3 of the 
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, by the District Ma!'!istrate. Puru-
lia. The order states that "with a view to preventing him from acting 
5-423SCI\75 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19751 3 s.c.R. 
in any manner prejudicial to the mainte1Jance of public order, it is 
necessary so to do''. 
It is founded on three grounds which run as 
under: 
"J. On 3. 6. l 973 at about 19. 00 hrs. at village Kotaldi 
a thickly populated area, under P. S. Santuri, District Puru-
lia, you with your associates were illegally manufacturing 
bombs for unlawful purposes from dangerous explosive ip 
your possession when an explosion took place causing fatal 
injury to one of your associates.-Sova Gape (s/o Late 
Chandi Gape of Kataldi, P. S. Santuri. You and your as-
sociates' act of preparing bombs presumably for criminal 
operations as given out by you and your associates and the 
explosion taking place in a thickly populated area, created 
panic amongst the local people on further threatened the 
local people with dire consequences even upto causin.iz death. 
if they informed police o( your above: said activity. This act 
of you nnd your associates endangered public safety and 
trnnquillity nnd were prejudicial to the 
maintennr.ce 
of 
Public Order. 
In consequence of your said activiy whtich comes with-
in the purview of Sec. 6(3) of Indian Explosive Act 1884, 
(Act No. IV of 1884) the maintenance of Public Order was 
disturbed. 
2. On 28. 6. 73 at about 08.00 hrs. you with your asso-
ciates armed with daggers and other dangerous weapons sud-
denly entered into the 'Grocery' of Shri Narayan Chandra 
Garai (S/o Harishikesh Garai) at Kistapur Bazar, P. S. San-
turi and demanded commodities from his shop for which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.