Narayan Debnath Vs. The State of West
Bengal [1974] INSC 175 (13 September 1974)
GOSWAMI, P.K.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
CITATION: 1976 AIR 780 1976 SCR (2) 780 1975
SCC (4) 508
ACT:
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971,
s. 3.-Scope of inquiry by Court in a petition challenging detention-- Armed
robbery in running train-If affects public order.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner was detained under s. 3, Maintenance
of Internal Security Act, 1971, on the sole ground that on 16-2-1973 at about
10 p.m. he, along with his associates, being armed with guns and other weapons,
committed dacoity in a third class compartment of a running train. In a
petition challenging the detention order the District Magistrate stated in his
counter affidavit that he based his subjective satisfaction only on the ground
mentioned in the detention order although other materials were placed before
him. The Court therefore. examined the record and the history sheet of the
detenu and held, dismissing the petition, that.
(1) The ground on which the detention order
had been made would reasonably give rise to a bona fide satisfaction in the
mind of the detaining authority that such incidents were likely to be repeated
in the same manner and that those who were alleged to have taken part in even a
single incident of such magnitude had to _be detained in order that the tempo
of peace in public life was not jeopardised. A careful examination of the
record and the history sheet showed, having regard to the grave nature of the
act committed by the detenu, that the District Magistrate was bonafide
satisfied that the said Act was sufficient for making the detention order.
[58F-G; 60A-B] (2) It could not be contended unless the facts stated in the
grounds are proved to the satisfaction of the Court, no action can be taken
under the Act. It is because that the act complained of cannot be
satisfactorily proved in a Court of law or that the witnesses are unwilling to
come forward being already terrified by the enormity of the act perpetrated
that action has to be taken under the Act to prevent further commission of
offenses of similar nature.
[58G-H] Besides, the scope of inquiry in a
case of this nature is very limited. The Court has to assume the grounds to be
true and it is not its function to examine the truth or otherwise of the allegations
mentioned in the grounds.
[58H], (3) It could not also be contended
that the matter merely affects law and order but not public order. When an
armed robbery or dacoity is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner
armed with guns and with his associates similarly armed, in a running train, it
no longer remains a matter of simple law and order as the peaceful tempo of
life of the community at large is also affected thereby. It not only puts the
passengers from various Places and walks of life in the particular third class
compartment in fear, but puts the passengers of the entire train and even of
other running trains in panic. Public order and life of the community is
thereby clearly disturbed and that amounts to public disorder which had to be
prevented by action under the Act.
[59A-D] Subal Chandra Ghosh v. State of West
Bengal, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. P. 2146, Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [1970] 3
S.C.R, 288, Ram Manohar Lohials case in [1966] 1 S.C.R. 709.
followed.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 305
of 1974.
Petition under ArtiCle 32 of the Constitution
of India.
G. Narayana Rao, for the petitioner.
Sumitra Chakravarty, G. S. Chatterjee and S.
K. Basu, for the respondent.
58 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GOSWAMI J.-The petitioner has been detained u/s 3 of the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act, 1971 (briefly the Act) (in order to prevent him from
acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order
was passed by the District Magistrate Nadia, on 11-4-73. The ground on which
the order was founded is as follows :-
1. "That on 16-2-73 in between 10.08
hours and 10.14 hours you along with your other associates being armed with gun
and other weapons committed a decoity in a 3rd class compartment of running
train S. 110 Dn.
between Habibpur R. S. and Lakinarayanpur
junction R.S. in Ranaghat Shantipur section and snatched away cash of Rs.
30,0,00/ from Shri Ashutosh Pal of Calcutta causing bullet injuries to him and
putting all passengers to fear of death.
Your action caused confusion, panic and
disturbed public order there.
You have thus acted in a manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order." The order was served upon the detenu
who made a representation; which was considered by the Government and rejected.
We have been taken through the time schedule of various orders passed by the
different authorities and we do not find any illegality in that behalf. As a
matter of fact, the learned advocate, Mr. Narayana Rao, appearing as amicus
curiae for the petitioner, has not raised any ground of illegality in that
connection.
Since, however, the District Magistrate in
his affidavit (Paragraph 6) has stated that be based his subjective
satisfaction only on the ground mentioned in the detention order although other
materials were placed before him, we examined the records of the case history
of the detenu.
After a careful examination of the record and
the history sheet, we find that the District Magistrate, having regard to the
grave nature of the act committed by the detenu, was bona fide satisfied that
the said act was sufficient for making, the detention order. Mr. Narayana Rao,
however, submits that unless the facts stated in the ground are proved to the
satisfaction of this Court, no action can be taken under the Act. We are
unable, to accede to this sub- mission. It is because that the act complained
of cannot perhaps be satisfactorily proved in a court of law or that the
witnesses are unwilling to come forward being already terrified by the enormity
of the act perpetrated that action sometimes has to be taken under the Act to
prevent further commission of offenses of similar nature. Besides, it is not
the function of the Court to examine the truth or otherwise of the allegations
mentioned in the grounds. The grounds are assumed 'by the Court to be true and
it is well settled that the scope of inquiry in a case of this nature is very
limited.
59 The learned counsel next contends that
this is at the worst a matter affecting law and order but not public order.We
are unable to accept this submission. When an armed robberyor dacoity like this
is alleged to be committed by the petitioner armed with guns with his
associates similarly armed, in a running train, it nolonger remains a matter of
simple law and order as the peaceful tempo in life of the community at large is
also affected thereby. It not only puts the passengers from various places and
walks of life in the particular. third class compartment in fear but the
passengers of the entire train and even of other running trains in panic.
Public-order and life of the community is hereby clearly disturbed. That
amounts to public disorder which has to be prevented by action under the Act.
Besides, the news of this type of daring dacoity in a running train is even
likely to prevent the traveling public from availing of communication by train.
Such consequences and effects are bound to affect public order which is the
opposite of public disorder. If any authority is needed we have one in A.I.R.
1972 S.C. p. 2146 (Subal Chanadr'a Ghosh v. State of West Bengal) wherein one
of us (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) observed as follows "The facts set out in
ground No. 1 clearly show that the offence alleged against him (detenu) is
committed in a daring manner in the presence of passengers which must been very
panicky and disturbed the public order." Again in Arun Ghosh v. State of
West Bengal(1) this Court dealing with the question of public order observed as
follows "The question whether a man has only committed a breach of law and
order, or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public
order, is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon
society.
The test is : Does it lead to a disturbance
of the even tempo and current of life of the community so as to amount to a
disturbance of the public order, or, does it affect merely an individual
without affecting the tranquility of society." In yet another decision of
this Court in Ram Manohar Lohia's case 2 ) Hidayatullah J. as he then was, speaking
for the majority, put in a picturesque language the whole concept of public
order thus "It will thus appear that just 'as "public order" in
the rulings of this Court was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than
those affecting "security of State", "law and order" also
comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting "public
order".
One has to imagine three concentric circles.
Law and order represents the largest circle
within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest
circle represents security of State. It is then easy to see that- an act may
affect public order but not security of the State." (1) [1970] 3 S. C. R.
288.
(2) [1966] 1 S. C. R. 709.
60 We are clearly of the view that the ground
on which the detention order has been made in this case would reasonably give
rise to a bonafide satisfaction in the mind of the detaining authority that
such incidents were likely to be repeated in the same manner and that those who
are alleged to have taken part in even a single incident of this magnitude had
to be detained in order that the tempo of peace in public life was not
jeopardised. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order. The petition fails and is dismissed. The rule
is discharged.
Petition dismissed.
V.P.S.
Back
