LexSADHU ROY versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G SADHU ROY v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL January 22, 1975 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 291 Mai11tena11ce of Internal Security A.ct (26 of 1971) S. 3.-Preventive deten- tion after discharge by Crlmi11al Court for offences which are grounds of deten- tion-When valid. The petitioner was detained under s. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Secu- rity Act, 1971. The grounds of detention were that twice on the same day he and his associates, ~rmed with dangerous weapo!lq, committed thefts of overhead copper.·wire, the first time in broad day light and then at about mid night. On both oecasions they were challenged by public servants, memben of the para pol ice force, attached to the railway administration but the petitioner a:nd his assciCiates escaped after attacking the members of the Railway Police Force. The petitioner waa arrested in connection with the two incidents. His name was not m the F.I.R. ilut was gathered in the course of investigation. The police, how- e1•er reported that the petitioner being a dangerous person. witnesses were afraid to depose against him in open court and so he was discharged. He was, however, tai:en into custody the same day of discharge pursuant to the detention order. Allowing the petitiort :hallenging the detention, - HELD : 1 (a) The discharge or acquittal by a criminal court is not necessa- rily a. bar to preventive detention on the same facts for 'security' purposes. But if such discharge or acquittal proceeds on the footing that the ch.arge is baseless or false, preventive detention on the same condemned facts may be vulnerable oo. the ground that the power of detention has been exercised in a ma/a fid~ or colourable manner. (b) The executive authority may act on ~ubjective satisfaction and fa im- munised from judicial dissection of the sufficiency of the material. But the ex- ecutive conclusion regarding futuristic prejndicial activities of the detenu and its nexus with his past conduct though acceptable is not invulnerable. (c) The satisfaction, though aUenuated by 'subjectivity' must be real and rational, must flow from an advertence to relevant factors, and not be a mockery or mechanical chant of statutorily sanctified phrases. The subjective satisfaction must be actual satisfaction. (d) One test to check upon the colourable nature or mindless mood of the alleged satisfaction of the authority is to see if the articulated 'grounds' are too groundless to induce credence in any reasonable man or too frivolous to be brushed aside as fictitious by a responsible instrumentality. ( e) If witnesses are frightened off by a desperate criminal, the court may discharge for deficient evidence but on being convinced (on police or other ma- terials coming withiQ his ken) that witnesses had been scared of test'fying, the District Magistrate may still invoke his preventive power to protect society. (f) But if on a rational or fair consideration of the police version or proba- tive circumstances he should have rejected it the routinisation of the satisfaction, couched in correct diction. cannot carry conviction about its reality and on. a charge of mala fides or misuse of power being made, the court can examine the circumstances. [297 D-298 CJ H (2) Merely to allege that witnesses were panicked away from testifying to truth cannot be swallowed gullibly when the witnesses are members of the Rail- way Protection Force and the offences against public property were of grave character. [299 B-C] 2 92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [197~] 3 s.c.R. ( 3) In a case Like the present, where the circumstanCC6 of the non··prosecu· tion strongly militate against the reality of the petitioner's involveme11t in the occurrence, the subjective satisfaction of the District Ma~istrate must be nPoleD1 to by him. While the detainer's on oath is not always insISted on as the price for sustaining thi: order, subjective ~ati~faclion, being a mental fact or sta1e is best established by 1he author's affidavit and not that of a stranger in the s1~cretariat familiar with the papers. But in the present case, the District Magistrate's affi- davit is not available and the reason given for his not filing his affidavit is not convincing. If the Di~;trict Magistrate had sworn an affidavit that the identity of the petitioner as participant in the two incidents was not lnown to the Railway Protection Force and that other villagers made them out as the ga
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.