Sk. Ibrahim Vs. State of West Bengal
& Ors [1973] INSC 249 (19 December 1973)
KHANNA, HANS RAJ KHANNA, HANS RAJ BEG, M.
HAMEEDULLAH
CITATION: 1974 AIR 736 1974 SCR (2) 803 1975
SCC (3) 13
ACT:
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971
(Act 26 of 1971)- Detention under sec. 3(1) and (2)-Activities prejudicial to
the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community-Held, on
facts that the grounds were not vague and there was no delay in considering the
representation.
HEADNOTE:
The detention order served on the petitioner
stated that on three different dates he along with his associates was found to
have smuggled rice to the rationing areas of Hoogly and Howrah and violently
attacked the anti-smuggling party and disrupted the smooth running of the train
service. The representation of the detenu was received by the State Government
on June 2, 1973. The State Government rejected the representation on June 4,
1973 and forwarded the same to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board by their
report dated July 11, 1973, held that there was sufficient cause for the
detention of the petitioner. On July 30, 1973, the State Government confirmed
the order of detention. The detention was inter (alia challenged on the ground
of delay and vagueness of grounds.
Dismissing the writ petition,
HELD : (1) The State Government received the
representation on June 2, 1973 and rejected the same on June 4, 1973.
There was no delay in the disposal of the
representation by the State Government. There was also no inordinate delay
although a period of more than ten days had elapsed from the date of submission
of the representation and its actual disposal. [804 H] (2)The mere fact that
the detention order is on a cyclostyled sheet wherein necessary particulars
were filled in ink would not go to show that the particulars in ink were filled
subsequent to the signing of the detention order.
There was no evidence to prove the
allegation. [805 C] (3)The date, time and place of each of the incidents were
specified in the grounds. Particulars were also given regarding the nature of
the activities of the petitioner.
The facts stated in the grounds of detention
were sufficient to apprise the petitioner of the precise activities on account
of which the detention order had been made. The fact that the names of the
associates of the petitioners were not mentioned in the grounds of detention
would not go to show that they suffered from the infirmity of vagueness.
The Courts look with disfavour upon vague
rounds of detention, because such grounds fail to convey to the detenu the
precise activity on account of which he is being detained so as to enable him
to make an effective representation. [806C]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1641
of 1973.
Under Art 32 of the Constitution of India for
issue of a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus.
S. C. Majumdar and A. Madan, for the
petitioner.
Sukumar Ghosh, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA. J- The District Magistrate of Hooghly passed an order on May 9, 1973
under sub-section (1) read with sub- section (2) of section 3 of the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 804 No, 26 of 1971) for the
detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential
to--the community. In pursuance of the, detention order, the petitioner was
arrested on May 14, 1973 and was served with the order of detention as also the
grounds of 'detention together with vernacular translation thereof. Report
about the making of the detention order was sent by the District Magistrate to
the, State Government and the said Government approved the detention order on
May 18, 1973. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board
by the State Government on June 5, 1973. The petitioner sent a representation
against his detention and the same was received by the State Government on June
2, 1973. The State Government rejected the representation on June, 4. 1973 and
forwarded the same to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board. after considering
the representation and hearing the petitioner in person made report to the,
State Government on July 11, 1973. Opinion was expressed by the Board that
there, was sufficient cause for the, detention of the petitioner. On July 30.
1973 the State Government confirmed the order for the detention of the
petitioner.
The petitioner in the meantime filed petition
under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Calcutta High
Court. The said Petition was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and
was dismissed as per judgment dated July 4, 1973. The present Petition under
article 32 of the Constitution was thereafter sent by the petitioner from jail
on July 23, 1973 for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.
The petition has been resisted by the State
of West Bengal and the affidavit of Shri Sukumar Sen, Deputy Secretary, Home
(Special) Department has been filed in opposition to the petition. Arguments
have been addressed before us by Mr. S. C. Majumdar amicus curiae and Mr.
Sukumar Ghosh for the State of West Bengal. Mr. Majumdar has assailed the
detention of the petitioner on three grounds.
It has been argued in the first instance by
Mr. Majumdar that there was delay on the part of the State Government in
considering the representation of the petitioner and such delay vitiates the
detention. This contention. in our opinion, is without any force. it would
appear from the affidavit filed by Shri Sukumar Sen that the representation
sent by the petitioner was received by the State Government in its Home
Department on June 2, 1973 after it had been forwarded by the Superintendent,
Hooghly Jail. The said representation was then considered and was rejected by
the State Government on June 4. 1973. It cannot, in our opinion, be said that
there was any delay in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by
the State Government. It has been urged that the representation wag sent by him
from jail on May 25, 1973 and that a period of 10 days elapsed from the date of
the submission of the representation and its actual disposal. The above period
cannot also be said to be so inordinately long as might affect the validity of
the detention.
805 It has next been argued on behalf of the
petitioner that the detention order contained blanks which were filled in
subsequent to the signing of that order by the District Magistrate. This
allegation has been denied in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State
Government and, in our opinion, there is no cogent ground to accept the
correctness of the allegation. The petitioner was admittedly not present at the
time the detention order was signed by the District Magistrate and. as such, he
cannot be in a position to state whether the detention order contained blanks
when it was signed by the District Magistrate. The mere fact that the detention
order is on a cyclostyled sheet wherein necessary particulars were filled in
ink would not go to show that the particulars in ink were filled in sub-
sequent to the signing of the detention order.
Lastly, it has been argued by Mr. Majumdar
that the grounds of detention on the basis of which the order for the detention
was made were vague. In this connection we find that the grounds of detention
were as under "On 31-3-73 in the early hours of the morning you and your
associates were found to smuggle rice by train No. of 2 Dn.
(Tarakeshwar--Sheofaphuli local) from non-
rationed areas to rationing areas of Hooghly and Howrah District in
contravention of the provisions of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Restriction
on Movement) Order, 1968. At 04.27 hrs. of date when the train reached
Kamarkundu Railway Station the anti-smuggling staff of Dankuni P.S.checkpost
under the command of S.I. Biren Das, seized 14 quintals and 55 kgs. of smuggled
rice belonging to you and your associates after rummaging the said train. At
this you and your associates launched a violent attack on the anti- smuggling
party and threw ballasts towards them causing injuries an the persons of some
of the anti-smuggling staff with a view to scare them away and thus attempted
to escape with the smuggled rice. The anti-smuggling party had to open fire in
self-defence and could be able to arrest two of your associates on chase when
you and your other associates managed to escape. As a result of this. there was
serious disruption in the smooth running of train services on
Tarakeshwar-Howrah line causing inconvenience to the travelling public and
transshipment of commodities essential- to the community. The said activity of
yours thus attract section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security
Act, 1971 (Act No. 26 of 1971).
2.On 12-4-73 at 11-21 hrs. you and your
associates were found to board train No. 4 Dn.
(Bombay-Howrah Mail) with huge quantity of
rice with a view to smuggle them from nonrational areas to the industrial belts
of 806 Howrah in contravention of the provisions of the West Bengal Rice and
Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1908 when the train stopped at Jaugram
Railway Station on Burdwan-Howrah Chord line due to alarm chain pulling by some
of your associates as per previous arrange- ments, S. P. N. O. Dey of G.R.P.
Enforcement Branch, Howrah with his staff who were travelling by the said train
could be able to stop the train at Chandanpore Railway Station with the help of
the Guard of the train. On seeing the S.I. and his Party, you jumped down from
the train and fled away from there leaving behind the bags of smuggled rice
weighing 5 quintals. The S.I. and his staff could also be able to seize 41 quintals
and 75 kgs. of smuggled rice from the possession of your other associates who
also managed to escape with you. The total value of the smug- gled rice seized
was about Rs. 10,000/-. By your such act you tried to frustrate the food policy
of the Government in respect of supply and distribution of essential
commodities to the community. The said activity of yours thus attract section
5(1)(a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of
1971).
3. On 23-4-73 at 12-20 hrs. when train No. C-258
Down (Burdwan-Howrah Chord line local) arrived at Kamarkundu Railway Station,
the anti-smuggling party of Howrah G.R.P.
Cordoning saw You in a 3rd class compartment
of the said train with the bags of smuggled rice in contravention of the
provisions of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order,
1968. The anti-smuggling staff under the command of S.I., J. C. Das arrested
You from the 3rd class compartment of the said train with two gunny bags
containing 169 kgs. of rice which 'you were carrying without any permit or
authority, By your such act you tried to frustrate the food policy of the
Government in respect of supply and distribution of essential commodities to
the community. The said activity of yours thus attract section 3(1)(a)(iii) of
the Main- tenance of. Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971)." It
would appear from the, above that the date, time and place of each of the
incidents were specified in the grounds. Particulars were also given regarding
the nature of the activities of the petitioner. The facts stated in the grounds
of detention were sufficient to apprise the petitioner of the precise
activities on account of which the detention order bad been made. It cannot in
the circumstances be said that the Petitioner was in any way handicapped in
making an effective representation- The fact that the names of the associates
of the Petitioner were not mentioned in the grounds of detention would not go
to show that they suffered from the infirmity of vagueness. The, courts look
with dis favour upon vague grounds of 807 detention, because such grounds fail
to convey to the detenu the precise activity on account of which he is being
detained. The detenu is thus prevented from making an effective representation
which he night possible have, made, if he had been apprised of the objection
able activity which led to his detention. Where, however, as in the present
case the requisite details of the activity for which the order for detention
was made have been conveyed to the detenu and he is not shown to have been
prejudiced or handicapped in making in effective representation, the argument
about the vagueness of grounds of detention must plainly be held to be not
tenable.
The petition consequently fails and is
dismissed.
S.B.W.
Petition dismissed.
Back