TULSHI RABIDAS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 401 · Decided: 27-01-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
TULSti{ RABIDAS 
,. 
THE STATE OF WEs·: BENGAL 
January .27, L915 
401 
[V. R.. KRISHNA }YER, P: K. GOSWAMI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] . 
Mai111e11a11ce of Intemal Security Act, Sec. 3-Subjective satisfaction, meal!· 
ing of-Some el'ide11ce gathered d11ri11g i11restigatio11 which in some manner roped 
ill the det,e11u, if s11fficie11t. 
· 
In .pursuan:e of the order of detention , made by the District Magistrate, 
West Dinajpur, on March i9, 1973, the p;ltitioner was taken into custody. The 
order of •detention was intended to prevent the petitioner from acting in 
a 
manner pr¢jlldicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community. 
The lil'$t ground related to the ar.rest of the petitioner and his associates while 
they were. sinuggling ·65 KGs. of 'paddy from West Dinajpur District to Maida 
District. On being challenged by the patrol party he could not produce any 
valid document in supp()rt of hi~ carrying paddy 
at West 
Dinajpur-Malda 
districts border. 
The second ground related to the smuggling of 
paddy on 
11f12,3·73 mid-night in 6' bullock .:arts by the petitioner and his ·associates 
from West Dinajpur District to Maida Di'slrict. On being challenged by the 
Resistance Group Members, the petitioner 'and his associates threatened to .kill 
them and therefore, being thus terrorised, they· d~red not apprehend the petitioner 
and his associates. 
"'· 
· 
Dismissing the Writ Petition challenging the order of detention, 
HELD : (i) The counter affidavit ·disclosed that a criminal ·:ase had been 
instiJuted against the petitioner and his associates for offences of illegal tran5port 
· of paddy, for resistan:e to the J!Olice officers taking them into custody and for 
escape from lawful custody. It further stated that 'due to dangerous 
and 
dt:sperate nature of the detenu and his associates' the witness declined to 
give· 
· evidence in op::n court for fear of their lives and that the final report was sub-
mitted in the said case. 
This mea,ns that the charge-sheet disclosed sufficient 
evidence to go before the Court and it was not a case of absence of reasonable 
grounds of suspicion. 
[403H·404B] 
{ii) So far as the second groul)d is conzerned, the absence of material to 
show that a case has been charge-sheeted in ,:c)urt is not destruc~ive of the 
detention order provided there is some_ material fo'r subjective satisfaction of the 
authority concerned. 
Whether the investigation was conducted properly or not. 
whether the. Dist:rict Magistrate should have pinned his faith on the result of 
investigation and like questions are not for the court to consider. 
But the 
minimum which .must be placed before the court is that there was some evidence 
gathered during investigation which. in some manner, roped in the petitioner. 
Jn the present case, there is some evidence for the District Magistrate to act. 
[404E-H] 
(iii) Rhetorica,l assertions that the Presidential proclamation of emer-
gency has outlived its reality and must be annulled. cannot be transformed into 
proof. The rea·>0ns given by this Court in Bhuth Nath's case A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 
806, holds good here too. 
[405E·F] 
Samsher Singh's case, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2192, referred to. 
ORIGINAL JuRm1cnoN : Writ Petition No. 349 of 1974. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India. 
H. S. Manvah, for the petitioner. 
S11kumar Ghosh and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. ' 
[1975) 3 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J.--The case of the petitioner, a detenu in West 
Bengal, has been presented at persistent length by Sri ~arwah, appear· 
ing as amic~1s curiae, but some of the many contentions pressed by 
him merit serious notice which alone we propose to deal with. 
Now, the facts to the extent relevant. 
The order for detention was 
made by the District Magisrate, West Dinajpur, on March 19, :1973 
pursuant to which he was taken into custody nine. days later. The 
calendar of 'statutory' events discloses no infirmity but the content of 
the groun'ds given by the District Magistrate and the order of approval 
made by the State Government have been the focal points of attack. 
Straightway W(: proceed to set out the two criminal involvements of the 
petitioner which allegedly persuaded the authority to direct detention 
with a view, hereafter, to inhibit this activities prejudicial to supplies 
essential to the community. 
They are : 
"( 1) That on 6-3-73 

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