LexSITALA PRASAD SHAW versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H SITALA PRASAD SHAW v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL October 15, 1974 [Y.V. CHANDRACHJJD AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 425 Constitution of India, Art. 22(5)- Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971- Period of detention-Habeas Corpus-Grounds of detention refer to a solitary Incl· dent-Particulars furnished stating "you have been acting" In a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order-If justifies inference that the detention order is based . on undisclosed material. The petitioner was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971. The ground of detention referred to a solitary incident. The particulars fur· nished to the petitioner however stated that he was detained on the ground: "yolll have been acting", in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In a petition for habeas corpus it was contended that since the language used showed a culpable conduct over a long period of time, the detaining authority had before it material showing that the petitioner was indulging .in a criminal course of conduct for a long period and as such material was not disclosed to the petitioner, he had no opportunity to meet it resulting thereby in the contravention of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. It was also contended that since State Government approved a deten· tion order bearing a date different from the one shown in the order served on the petitioner, State Government had before it some other order of detention while approving the petitioner's detention. Confinning the ·order of detention, · HELD : In matters Involving the liberty of the $Ubject, the detaining authorities ought to exercise the greatest care in the discharge of their functions. But that does not justify an unrealistic dissection of detention orders. The counter affidavit filed by the State shows that no other material was taken into account. The use of ex· pression "you have been acting", though . unfortunate does not support the submission that the detention order was founded on undisclosed material. [426C-E] (2) · The order of approval contains a typographical error which is clear from the fact that the number of detention order is correctly given and in the order con- firming !he detention order, after consultation with the Advisory Board the correct date of the detention order is mentioned. [426F-HJ · ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 118 of 1974. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. R. L. Kohli, for the: petitioner . . Dilip Sinhlz and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J.-The petitioner was detained by an order daied August 23, 1973 passed by the J?istrict Magistrate, Hc·wrah, u~der the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The prder recites that the petitioner was detained v.ith a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The particulars"ofthe ground of detention refer to a solitary incident dated March 18, 1973. It is aJleged that at about 2 p.m. on that date, the.. petitioner and his associates being armed with ~"'.ords, Ballams and Lathis attacked a group of Bengalees .at RaJnar~y~n. Roy Choudhury Ghat Road, Shibpur, Howrah cau.<mg sever~ 1DJUT1es to them. It is further stated that this conduct Jed to a reign of terror 426 SUPREME COURT REPQRTS [1975] 2 s.c.R. in the locality as a result of which the sh6ps .and the doors. of th~ road side houses ,vere closed, people of the locality fled away mpamc and the people were generally afraid of coming out of their houses for fear of being assaulted. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the pe1itioner has raiied two points for our consideration in this petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The part;culars furnished to the petitioner say that the petitioner was detained on the ground: "you have been acting" in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The argument is that the order is founded on a single incident and there- fore, the use of language showing that the culpable conduct on the part of the petitioner extended over an appreciably long period of time was wholly inappropriate. Inferentially; it is urged, the detaining authority had material before it showing that the petitioner was indulging in a criminal course of conduct for a long pericd of time and as such 1 material was not disclosed to the petitioner, he .had no opportunity
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.