LexSUDHIR KUMAR SAHA versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCUTTA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
360 SUDHIR KUMAR .SAHA v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CALCU1TA & ANR. December 18, 1969 [J. C. SHAH AND K. S. IIEGDB, JJ.] Preventive Detention Act (4 of 1950), s. 3(2)-Acts prejudicial to maintenance of public order-What are. The petitioner along with others, committed various offences on three occasions. On the first occasion be attacked the people of a locality with a knife and by hurling 'bottles at them. On the other two occasions he attacked the pe<iple of another locality, by hurling bombs at them. He C was detained under s. 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, ~50, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In a petition under Art. 32 for the issue of a writ of, habeas corpus, HELD : The incidents were not interlinked and could not have pre- D judiced the maintenance of public order. They were stray incidents ,,_;;". spread over a period of one year and four months, directed against indi· vi duals, and , did not disturb society to the extent of causing a general dil- turbance of public tranquillity; and hence, the petitioner was entitled. to be released. The power to detain is an exceptional power to be used in exceptional circumstances and cannot be used as a convenient substitute for the ordinary 'process of law. The acts complained of against the petitioner can at best be considered as prejudicial to "law and order" E and not "public order" as required by the Jaw relating to preventive detention. [361 H; 362 A-C, E-F] Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, [1966] I S.C.R. 709 and Arun Ghosh v. State of Wes! Bengal, [1970] 3 S.C.R. 288, followed. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 378 of 1969. Petition under Art. 32 of the Co)IStitution for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. D. P. Singhr for the petitioner. G. S. Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. In this petition under Art. 32 of the ConstitUtion submitted from jail, the petitioner seeks a writ of habear corpus directing his release from detention. We .have . already directed the release of the petitioner .on 15-12-1969. Now we proceed to give our reaions in support of that order. The P.etitioner was ordered to be detained by the Commis· sioner of Police, Calcutta under s. 3(2) of the Preventive Deten· tion Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) by his order dated July lS, G H ,., I ., II .. I I ~ ... A B c D E F G s. K. SAHA v. COMMR. POLICE (Hegde, J.) 361 1969. It is stated in that order that the petitioner was ordered to be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order". That order was confirmed by the State Government after the same was approved by the Advisory Board. From the grounds served on the petitioner, it appears that his detention was ordered because of the three instances men- tioned therein. It is . said therein that on 28-2-1968 between 9-50 p.m. and 10-30 p.m. the petitioner armed with a knife along with some others, also armed, created disturbance on the Northern Avenue in the course of which he attacked. the local people with . knife as a result of which one Ajit Kumar Biswas sustained stab injuries. It is further allqged that during that incident, the petitioner and his associates hurled sodawater bottles and brickbats towards the local people endangering their lives and safety and thereby they created fear and frightfulness . amongst the people of the locality and thus affected public peace · and tranquillity of the locality. The second incident mentioned therein is that on 29-10-1968 at about 9-10 p.m. the ·petitioner being armed with bombs and accompanied by some other created disturbance on Raja Manin- dra Road, in the course of which tie and his associates hurled bombs, used swords, iron rods and lathis against the local peo- ple endangering their lives and safety and thereby they created fear and frightfulness in the locality resulting in the disturbance of public peace and tranquillity of that locality. The last incident mentioned is that on 28-6-1969 at about 11-15 p.m., the petitioner and his associates armed with bombs created disturbance on Raja Manindra Road in the course of which they indisc:rinrinately hurled 1 bombs towards the local people endangering their lives and safety and thereby they affected public peace and tranquillity of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.