SASTI@ SATISH CHOWDHARY versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 02-05-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

8 
c 
I> 
F 
G 
H 
SASTI@ SATISH CHOWDHARY 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
May 2, 1972 
[J. M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J 
467 
Maintenance of Jnternai Security Act, 1911~Detention under s. 3--
Alleged theft of copper wi" by detenu menti·oned a.s ground of /!eten-
tion--Detention -undtr A.ct whether vaUd when prosecution under Indian 
Penal Code can be launched again.; detenu. 
The petitioner was detained by an order und" '- 3 of the Maintenan~e 
of Internal Security Act 1971. In a petition under .Art. 32 of the Consti-
tution it was urged on behalf of tho petit'ioaer that a ptOS'".Cution 
for 
tbeft under the Indian Penal Code could have been launched on the facts 
alleged against him in the grounds cf detention and therefore his d!ten-
tion was illeg-al. 
Rejecting the pl<a, 
HELD : It. is always open to the detaining authority to pass 
an 
order for the detention of a J>Crson if the grounds of detention are ger-
mane to the object for which a detenrion o:d·or can legally bq made, 
The fact 'that the· particular act of the detenu which provides the reason 
for the making of the detention order constitute; an offence under the 
Indian Penal Code would not prevent the detaining authority from pass~ 
ing the. order for detention instead of pro-;eeding ag.ainst him in a court 
Of law. 
The ct.etaining ·authority might well fed that though there was 
not sufficient evidence admissible under the Indian Evidence Act for s~ 
curing a conviction, the activiti·.;-s of the person ordered to be detained 
were of such a nature as to justify the order cf det2ntion. 
Even in cases 
where a person 1~as been actually prosecu'ed in a court of law in respec1-
of an incident and has b'en dischargpd by the trying magistrate, a valid 
order of his detention can be passed against him in connection with that 
very incident. [469 H-470 CJ 
Mohd. Sa/irt, Khan v. Shri C, C. Bose & Anr. (Writ petition No, 435 
of 1971 decided on April 25, 1972) relied on. 
Sahib Singh Duggci v. Union of India, [1966] I S.C.R. 323 referred 
to. 
The particulars of the 
incident in tb' grounds of detention in 
the 
present case showed that the petitioner and his associates committed theft 
in !respect of overhead electric wires. The above act of the l='~titioner 
and his associate< created complete 
dislocation of electric supplies 
of 
the area. Tm above ground 'Of detention was 
germane to the object 
for which a detention order can be made under section 3(1) (a) (iii) 
9f th~ Act , According to that provision, the detaining autqority may, 
1f satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him 
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 
supplies 
and selrvices e'seirtial to the community, it is necessary so to do make 
an order directing that such person be detained, [470 E-F] 
' 
Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors, v. The State of West Bengal, [1969] 
.2. S.C.R. 635, Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [1970] 3 s.C.R. 
288 and Nagertdrc Nath Monda/ v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 2 S.C.C. 
498, referred to. 
468 
SUPREM£ COUK f REPORTS 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 37 of 1972. 
A 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the 
nature of habeas corpus. 
T. S. Arora, for the petitioner. 
S. C. Ma;umdar and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
Khanna, J. This is a petition through jail under article 32 
of the Constitution for the ismance of a writ ::>f habeas corpus by 
Sasti alias Salish Chowdharv, who has been ordered by the Dis-
trict Magistrate Howrah to be detained under section 3 of the 
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred 
to as the Act). The crder recited that it was made with a view 
to preventing the petitioner frcm acting in any manner prejudi-
cial to the maintenance of supplies and services es,,ential to the 
community. 
The order or detention was passed by the District Magistrate 
on Septeml:ler 8, 1971. The petitioner, it is stated, was found to 
be absconding soon after the passing of the order. He was arrest-
ed on November 23, 1971 and was served with the order of de-
tention and the grounds of detention together With 
vernacular 
translation thereof on the same day~ In the meanwhile on Sep-
tember 8, 1971 the District Magistrate sent report to the State 
Government about his having made the order of detention along 
with the grounds of detention and other necessary particulars. 
The matter was then considered by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.