LexSHYAMAL CHAKRABORTY versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCUTTA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
762 SHYAMALCHAKRABORTY v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCUTIA & ANR. August 4, 1969 [S. M. S!KRI, G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J Prcventi\·e Detention Act, 1950, ss. 3 and 1-'Public order' in s. 3- Act.r which are ofiences u1Jder Jrtdian Pe11al Code whether come under pur,,iew of 'public order'-Representation to Government b;i.· detenu after casP d(•alt \viii: by Advisory Board-D11ty of Govern1nent to consider representation under s. 7. l"hc petitioner was arrested and detained by an order of the Commis· sioner of Police, Calcutta under s. 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. According to the grounds of detention supplied to him his acti· vi ties \Vere prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. The petitioners' case was placed h~forc the Advisory Hoard and on obtaining its opinion 1hc Governor confirmed the order of delenlion. It was after this that the petitioner made representations to the State Government. 'fhen he filed the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution based on the follo\l.'ing grounds : (i) 1hat there was a hrcach of s. 7 of the Act inasmuch as his rcprcsentalions \l.·erc not considered by the Government; (ii) that the grounds furnished to him mentidned offences under the Indian Penal Code and these could not he used for the purpose of detention except in emergencies; (iii) that the grounds did not have any relation to 'public order'. HELD: (i) It is obligatory on the Government to deal with the representations made by the detcnu, but i'l the present case the dctenu made his representations only after the Advisory Board had dealt with the matter. The State Govcrnn1ent \l.'as in the process of dealing with his representation. In the circumstances it could not he said that there had been a breach of s. 7 of rhc Acl. (765 E-G] (ii) The contravention of any la"' alY•ays affects order but before it can be said to affect public order it must affect the community or the public at large. [766 Al Pus/zkar ,\111klrerjee & Ors. v. Tiu~ Stcte of West Bengal, (1969) 2 S.C.R. 635, applied. The grounds of detention supplied to the dctenu in the present case B c D E F showed that on one occasion he took part in rioting ~long with associates G armed with lathis, iron rods and acid bulbs. On another occasion he took part in assaulting a constahle on duty. On a third occasion he and his associates v.·ere armed with deadly \1.:eapons v.·hich were actually used in indiscriminately endangering human lives in the locality. (766 C-D] From, these activities the object of the detenu seems to have been to te-rrorise the locality and bring the v.·hote machinery of law and order to a bait. The conclusion of the detaining authority that the detenu was H likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public orde-r in the future and it \l.'3s nccess;:f"y to prevent him from doing so, was jusrified. (766 E-FJ ' I S. CHAKRABORTY v: COMMR., POLICE (Sikri, J.) 7 63 A The fact that public sector was affected by an act which was also an offence under the Indian Penal Code was irrelevant. [766 Fl ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 102 of 1969. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. B Vinoo Bhagat, for the petitioner. c D E F G H S. P. Mitra, G. S. Chatierjee for Sukumar Basu, for the respon- dents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. Thls is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitu- tion by Shyamal Chakraborty who has been detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Three grounds have been urged by the learned counsel why we should issue a writ of habeas corpus directing his release: ( 1) that the detenu's representation was not considered by the Government, (2) that the grounds furnished to the detenu mentioned offences under the Indian Penal Code and cannot be used for the purpose of detaining the detenu except in emergen- cies and ( 3) that the grounds do not have any relation to the maintenance of public order. Following are the facts as they emerge from the affidavits on. record. The detenu was detained by an order No. 3846-D.D. (S) dated 13th November, 1968 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta in exercise of powers conferred on him by sec- tion 3(2) of the Act. The detenu was arrested on November 13, 1968 and was served with the grounds of detention both in Engli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.