LexRAMESHWAR LAL PATWARI versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E G H 'I RAMESHWAR LAL PATWARI v. STATE OF BIHAR December 1, 1967 [M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 505 Preventive Det.ent'ion Act, 1950-0rd2r of detention by Governor under s. 3(1) (a)(iii)-<Jrouudr of detention supplied to detenu-·-Must not he vague-Circumspettion on the part of detaining authority req11ired-Black- marketing a sufficient ground for· detention \vlzen proved. The· appellant was detained und·:r an order of the Governor of Bibar State unde·r s. 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Preventive Detention Acr, 1950. The gromids of detention supplied to him mentioned that he \Vas engaged in the black~marketing of food-grains. He mad~ a representation before tlic Advisory Board but his release was not recommended. In a writ petition before the High Court he urged that the grounds of detention supplied to him were either vague or non-existent. The petition having been dismissed by the High Court the oppellant by special leave, cam.e to this Court. HELD·: (i) The formation of the opinion about detention rests with the Government or the officer authorised. Their satisfaction is all that the Jaw speaks of nnd the courts are not constituted an appellate authority. Thus the sufficiency of the grounds cannot be agitated before the court. How.-:!vcr, the dclention of r. person v.·ithout a trial, mere1y on the subjective !:ttisfaction of an authority however high, is a serious matter. It must require the closest scrutiny of the m·aterial on which the decision is formed. leaving no room for errors or at lea~: avoidable errors. Since the detenu is not placed before· a Magistrate and -has only a right of being supplied the grounds of ·detention with a vie\\-' to his making a representation to the Advi~ory Board, the grounds must not be vague or indefinite and must afford a real opportunity to make a representation against the detention. It a vital ground is shown to be non.existing so that it could not have and ought not to have played a part in the material for consideration. the court may attach some importance. to this fact. [509 D-G] Shibban Lal Saksena v. U.P. [1954] S.C.R. 418 and Knhm' Ta/pade The King Emperor, [1943] F.C.R. 88 referred IQ. (il) Black·marketing is a sufficient ground for detention because it has a definite tendency to- disrupt supplies when scarcity exists or scarcity is created artificially by hoarding to attain i1legitimate profits. Indulging in black~marketing is conduct which is prejudicial -10 the maintenance of supplies. It is hardly necessary to read supplie<> conjunctively with s1..-rvices. although cases may exist \Vhere supplies and services may both be affected. The word 'and' is not used conjunctively but disjunctively. If sweepers strike, no· question of disrupting supplies arises but services essential to the life of the community will certainly be disrup:ed. [510 BJ Ehim Sen v. State of Punjab, fl952] S.C.R. 19, referred to. (iii.) The grounds of detention supplied to the appellant \Vere cithef non--existent or vague or other\visc deficient and did not justify the detea- tion of the appeJlant. It \'.'as a matter of great regret that powers of detention \\tithout a trial y,·hich should be eJoliercised with the greatest care a.nd attention had been exercised in this case \Vith disregard for truth and accuracy. [514 B-D] 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1968] 2 S.C.R. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 1967. Appeal by special kave from the judgment and order dated August 9, 1967 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Writ Jurisdic- tion Case No. 31 of 1967. A M. C. Seta/vad. R. L. Kohli and J. C. Ta/war, for the appellant. B B. P. Iha, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by llidayatullah, J, The appellant (Rameshwar Lal Patwari) applied under Art. 226 of the Constitution and s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ or order in the nature of habeM corpus for his release from detention in Bhagalpur Central Jail in pursuance of an order of detention pa5scd by the Governor of Bihar on July 4, 1967 under s. 3( I )(a)(i;i) of the Preventive De- tention Act, 1950. He was arrested under the order on July 11, I 967 and was served on July 13, 1967 with a copy of the ground~ on which his detention was based to enable him to make a repre- sentation. He made a representation but his release was net re- commended. His application in the High Court was also dis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.