ANAND BEHARI MISHRA Vs. THE STATE
LAWS(MPH)-1950-9-6
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on September 06,1950

Anand Behari Mishra Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EMPEROR V. SIBNATH BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR V. SIBNATH BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
BASANTA CHANDRA V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
MACHINDAR SHIWAJI V. THE KING [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is an application under S. 491, Criminal P.C., by one Ram Behari Lal Mishra on behalf of his father, Mr. Anand Behari Misra, (referred to hereafter as the petitioner) who is detained under S. 3 (1) (a) (ii), Preventive Detention Act, 1950, by an order passed by the District Magistrate of Gwalior bearing the date 19 -8 -1950 for release from detention. The order of detention is in Hindi and when translated into English reads as follows : Whereas I, Namdeo Raw Patil Suba and District Magistrate Gird, am satisfied with respect to Mr. Anand Behari Mishra, son of Krishna Behari Mishra resident of Sarala Bazar Lashkar that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it 13 necessary to detain him.....Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -s. (2) of S. 3, Preventive Detention Act (IV [4] 1950), I hereby direct that the said Anand Behari be detained. The petitioner was furnished with the grounds of detention under S. 7 of the Act on 22 -8 -1950. The application is supported by an affidavit of Ram Behari Mishra. On 23 -8 -1950, Mr. Anand Behari Mishra also filed an affidavit controverting the grounds of detention. The District Magistrate has filed a return supported by an affidavit, against the application.
(2.)IT is stated by the petitioner that he is an advocate of this High Court and the leader of opposition in the Madhya Bharat Legislature. He was arrested on 20 -8 -1950 at 6 A.M. at his residence under the orders of the District Magistrate, The petitioner goes on to say that his arrest and detention is mala fide. The order of detention was made by the District Magistrate not because he was satisfied as required by S. 3, Preventive Detention Act, in order to safeguard the maintenance of public order, but that it was passed with an ulterior motive to prevent the applicant, from moving the Raj Pramukh and the Government to summon the Legislature to meet for the purpose of censuring the conduct of the Government in relation to certain incident which occurred in Lashkar on 9 -8 -1950; that the District Magistrate made the order of detention at the suggestion of the Government without satisfying himself as to the necessity of detaining the petitioner. The applicant further says that he is a respectable and peaceful citizen and his efforts have always been directed towards pacifying "the wounded and enraged feelings of the students in particular and the public in general." It is also stated in the application that the petitioner was detained last year also without any reason and that he was released by this Court and further that the grounds of detention furnished to him are vague.
(3.)IN his return and affidavit the District Magistrate admits that the petitioner is an advocate of this High Court and also a leader of certain group in the Madhya Bharat Legislature. He has further said that it is not true that the order of detention was passed mala fide; it is also not true that the order was passed at the suggestion of the Government without applying his mind to the question as to whether there were before him sufficient grounds for satisfying himself that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The District Magistrate does not dispute that the petitioner is a respectable citizen but he says that his activities in the month of August have been prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He then says that the order of detention passed last year was not made by him but by his predecessor and that it has no relation to the circumstances in which the order in question in this petition has been made. The District Magistrate states in the end that the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner are specific and that his detention is neither illegal nor improper.
The grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner under S. 7 of the Act read as follows :

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.