LexSAMARESH CHANDRA BOSE ETC. ETC. versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BURDWAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SAMARESII CHANDRA BOSE ETC. ETC.
v.
DISTRICT MAGISfRATE. Bt.t"RDWAN
August 14, 1972
[1. M. SHI!LAT, I. D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
859
J
MainttiiiUICt of lnrtrnal Securit,v Act No. 26 of 1911--sution 3(l
IM 3(2), whtthtr delay o/22 days in considering the rtprtstntc.:ion o/ 1~
ktenwu by the Governmrnt unju.stifitd-Whethtr
vr'olt"ct
· J
•
'/ 1 1
nd
11
"
prarlllt
,1auut pot t co opponentz a
po ce party affects public ordtr- Wit tit
kttlltion order passed against dtttnu~ in jail Is ptr se m:tla fide.
t
u
. The delef!ues and some other persons belonging to CPI(M) killed a
iriver beloogmg to CPl. It was furthe.r alleged that the detenues attacked
C the police party with bombs. The detention order was issutd while the
4etcnues were still in custo~y. The detention Y.-aJ challenged, intu alia, oa
the ground that the dcten!Jon .was vagu~. that the alleged acts of violence
tlid not raise aoy problem of public; order and that the detention was mal•
{We. The detenues also challenged the validity of s. 17(a).
Dillmissiog the petition,
D
HELD : (i) The reasons aiven by the Government, for delay, namely,
Pwtani au;ressioo durin& Bangladesh war, go-41Dw movement of ~~o-o·kers.
iDcrease in the number or detention cases and spate of anti-social activities
•1 Nualites aod other political extermists, W'Crc clear and 0011viDcin1.
'There was oo inordinate delay in the eoosider~tion of repres.eot_ations. ~·
aidering the facts ot the case, the represeotallons were COOS!dered
WJih
fliiO!lable di.sp:~tch. /862E]
E
Ujagar Singh v. The Smte o f Punjab, n952l S.C.R. 155 and :-4miyo
KJUnDT Karmal.4r v. Stott of West Bengal W.P. No. 190 of 1972, rdied on.
(ii) The petitioners knew who the "poli!ical op~onents" ~re and ~
detention order upressly stated the respective par1tes 10 w~ch tbe pe
acne" and the \ictim belonged. The two grou~ds of de!CnllO"' art0
trt~:
linked
It cannot therefore be said that the pehtlonen did oOt &<:t pp r
!unity· to malte effective representation due to vaguene~ or ambtgully 0
F 'be crounds fumilihcd. !865H]
.
(ill) It is quite clear that the pet_itioners an':o a::v~;: t:C1r ~~n~rcj
111 acts prima fac/~ designed to terr?r'f peopled all this mu.st have inevi-
oppooentt and to cow down tho poh<7 orce ~~rmal peaceful civU life of
llible e!fect of disturbin!f and p~lys~
d ~pact of the activities of the
1lle eeoeral public. The magrutut ::.n
and trooqu:Uitv of the law-
G
Pe'titiooc:~ ahd hls associates on
th~~c acts of the detcnuea rslsed
abidio1 ,rderly aocictv cl.carly shows01 a
~
alfectina public order. t868
.
r of p01ict, (19701 1 S.C.R. 76l.
Shyamfal Chakraborty v. Commisslorte
reUcd oo.
Salta
C.Jl. 138 $wdltv l{utrtllr
v.
SIUhanta Goswcml, In 111 : [19691 i_S.360 and Anut GMtlt • · Stott of
H
C~tsslorur, .Calcutta. f1970l 3 ~·~· ished
"m Btnc'l/, (1970] S.C.Jl. 2811, dUUDJU
•
tude tho debi~P
rt f taw cannot prce
oec;etsity
•
(iY) The earlier discharge In a ~~cti~e satisfaction abOUt the
IDJ authority !rom coming to a su l
, I
I .
I
I
I
1
I
., ·t
I
I
I
860
SUPJ.EMB COUIT J.EPOllTS
[1973) l S.C.R
of the petitioner's detention which is preventive in c;haracter. The deten-
tion order is not reiJdered illegal or rna~ fide simply because the order was
passed when the detenues were still in jail. f868F]
(v) Challenge, to s. 17(a), introduced as an amendment by Defence
of India Act, 42 Ql[ 1971 was not pressed.
OPIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petirtions Nos. 216-218
of
1912.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforce--
ment of fundamen1al rights.
Somnath Chatterjee, Narnarayan Gooptu, Pulakmondal and
Rathin Das, for the petitioners.
D. N. Mukherjee and G. Mukh()ty, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dua, J.
These three writ petitions (Samaresh Chandra Bose
v. District Ma_gistrate, Burdwan & Ors. W.P. No. 216 of 1972;
Shymal Biswas v. District Magis~rate, Burdwan etc., W.P. No.
217 of 1972 ,and Dulal Chandra Das
v.
District Magistrate,
Burdwan etc., W.P. No. 218 of 1972) raise common questions of
law and fact and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common
judgment.
In fact tthe main arguments were addressed only in
Samaresh Chandra Bose v. District Magistrate (W.P. No. 216
of 1972), the arguments of this case having been adopted in the
·other two cases. We would, tlrerefore, refel to the facts in W.P.
No. 216 of 1972.
Samaresh Chandra Bose who is employed as a SupExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.