THE STATE OF BOMBAY versus PURUSHOTTAM JOG NAIK

Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 674 · Decided: 26-05-1952 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Set Aside
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1952 
Tlie State of 
BihtJr 
v. 
Shailaba/a De11i. 
1952 
Ma1 26. 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1952] 
who are acquainted with the actual situation, 
it was 
incumbent upon the Government to clear up these 
matters and present before us the background and the 
context without which no meaning could be attributed 
to this species 
of 
empty verbiage. 
As 
Government 
did not discharge the duty that lay upon them, I am 
clearly of opinion that 
no security order could be 
passed against the respondent under the 
provision of 
section 4(l)(a) of the Press Emergency Act. 
DAs 
J.-During the course of the arguments I 
entertained some doubt as to the innocence of the 
meaning and implication of the pamphlet in question, 
but, in the light of the judgments of my learned 
brothers Mahajan. J. and Mukherjea J., which I have 
had the advantage of perusing since, I do not fee) that 
I would be justified in dissenting from the construction 
· they have put upon the language used in the pamphlet. 
I accordingly concur in their conclusion. 
BosE J.-1 agree with my brothers Mahajan and 
Mukherjea. 
Appeal dismissed. 
· Agent for the appellant : R. C. Prasad. 
Agent for the respondent: P. K. Chatterjee. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
ti. 
PURUSHOTTAM JOG NAIK 
[PATANJALI 
SASTRI c. J., MEHER CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA, DAs and BosE JJ.] 
Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950), s. 3-Constitution of 
India, 1950, Art. 166--0rder of deteotion-Form of order-Order 
stating that Government is satisfied-Not stating exf"essl'f that it 
is issued in the name of the Governor'-Valid£ty-Proof by other 
evidence-Valt1e of Secretary's evidence-Form of verification. 
The tnatetial 
,portio~ of an order of detention made under 
s, 3 ·of. the: Ptevo11ti.e Detention Act, 1950, ran as fol!bws: 
, -. 
-
.. . 
- .... , 
-
' l 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
675 
"Whereas 
the 
Government of 
Bombay is 
satisfied 
with 
respect to the person known as J. N. . ..... that with a view to 
preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the m~in
tenance of public order it is necessary to make the 
followmg 
order : Now, therefore,. ....... the 
Government of Bombay 
is 
pleased to direct that the said J. N. be detained. 
By order of the Governor of Bombay 
(Sd.) V. T. D. 
Secretary to the Government of 
Bombay, Home Department". 
The High Court of Bombay held that the order was defec-
tive as it was not "expressed to be in the name of the Governor" 
within the meaning of Art. 166 (1) and was not accordingly pro-
tected by Art. 166 (2) : 
Held, that 
the order was not defective merely because 
it 
stated that the Government of Bombay was 
satisfied 
and 
that 
the Government of Bombay was pleased to direct that J. N. be 
detained, and, though the addition of the words "and in his 
name" to the words "By order of the Governor of Bombay" 
would 
have 
placed 
the 
matter 
beyond 
controversy, the order 
was really one expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor 
of Bombay within Art. 166. 
Held further, that, assuming that the order was defective it 
was open to the State Government to prove by 
other means that 
such an order has been 
validly 
made. 
It 
is 
not 
absolutely 
necessary in evety case to call the Minister in charge ; if the 
Secretary or any other person has the requisite means of know-
ledge and his affidavit is believed, that will ht: enough. 
Verification should invariably be modelled .on 
the lines of 
0. XIX, r. 3, of the Civil Procedure Code, whether the Code 
applied in terms or not, and when the matter deposed to is not 
based on personal knowledge the sources of information must 
be clearly disclosed. 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Case No. 30 of 
1950. 
Appeal under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution of India 
from 
the Judgment and Order dated 24th October, 
1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay 
(Bavdekar and 
Vyas JJ.) 
m 
Criminal Application 
No. 1003 of 1950. 
M. 
C. Setalvad (Attorney-General for India) 
and 
C. K. Daphtary (Solicitor-General for India) with G. N. 
Joshi for the apellant. 
Respondent ex parte. 
1952 
Thi: Stat1: uf 
Bombay 
v. 
Purushottam 
Jog Naik. 
1952 
The State of 
Bombay 
v. 
Purushottam 
fog Naik. 
Bose/. 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
fl952J 
1952. 
May 26. 
The judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
BoSE J.-This is an appeal from an order of the 
Bombay High Court directing 
the release of the 
respondent who had been detained under section 3 of 
the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. 
The learned
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.