SUNIRMAL DUTTA Vs. PROVINCE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 491, Criminal P. C. relates to an order of detention passed against the applicant by the province of Bihar purporting to be under 8. 2(1) (a), Bihar Maintenance of Public Order (NO. 2) Ordinance, 1949, (For the sake of brevity, we shall hereafter call this Ordinance as the Ordinance of 1949), The order of detention in this case was passed on 2nd July 1949, and a copy of the order was served on the applicant on 5th July 1949, on 25th July 1949 a Copy of the grounds on which the detention order was made which purports to be dated 22nd July 1949, was served on the applicant. It is not quite clear from the records as to when a representation was made by the applicant against the order in question; but we are informed that such a representation was made and the matter was referred to the advisory Council constituted under Sub-section (8) ol Section 4 of the Ordinance of 1949 on 24th September 1949, and the records were received by the Chair, man of the said Advisory Council on 26th September 1949. Thus far the facts are admitted. Atone stage it was suggested by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Crown that the Advisory Council had called for further information from the Provincial Government in connection with the representation made by the detenu. We, therefore, directed that an affidavit should be filed on behalf of the Crown giving full particulars and the date on which the materials were called for, and the date on which the materials and further information were received by the Advisory Council. We accordingly adjourned the hearing of this application to enable the learned Government Advocate to file the affidavit required. The learned Government Advocate, however, finally submitted that he was unable to file any such affidavit. The result is that we have assumed for the purposed of this case in the absence of any definite information on the point, that the Advisory Council after the reference had been made to it did not call for any further information from the Provinaial Government or receive any such farther materials or information from the Provincial Government, and the case will now have to be decided upon the facts as we have stated above.

(2.) Mr. Ghosh appearing for the petitioner in so far as I have been able to understand his argument, has raised two points, in support of his claim that the detention of the petitioner is illegal. He says firstly ; (1) that the grounds for detention are vague and indefinite, and (2) that there being no compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Bihar Act in of 1950 (The Bihar Maintenanae of Public Order Act, 1949) hereinafter called the Act of 1960.

(3.) It would be convenient to deal with his arguments seriatim. I propose, therefore, to take up his first argument based upon the vagueness or insufficiency of the grounds of detention communicated to the petitioner. We have had the advantage of examining the grounds, and we are not satisfied that there is any substance in the complaint of the petitioner. We consider that the grounds stated are specific and definite. It is true that they do not disclose the source from which informations are derived, but, in my opinion, it is not obligatory on the Provincial Government to disclose the source of their information. It was open to the petitioner, if he felt any difficulty in making his representation on account of any supposed vagueness to ask for farther particulars. It is not suggested that the petitioner in this case ever did ask for such particulars and was refused. That being so, there is evidently no merit in this objection. Even if there had been any insufficiency or vagueness in view of the proviso to sub.s. (1) of Section 4of the Ordinance of 1949, it is not open to us to hold that the order of detention is illegal, unlawful or improper on this account, The proviso has since been held by their Lordships of the Federal Court to be valid (See Lakshmi Narain Das v. The Province of Bihar, the decision being, of 28th November 1949: (A. I. R. (37) 1950 F. C. 69.) The matter wag again examined by a Division Bench of this Court in Tabarak Khan v. Province of Bihar, Cri. Misc. no. 784 of 1949, decided on 23rd December 1319, (A. I.R. (37) 1950 pat. 228) where again it was held that the proviso was valid. In any case tha clarity or inadequacy of the grounds is largely a matter for consideration by the Advisory Council and the Ordinance itself provides a machinery to scrutinise the basis of the grounds of detention. There is no doabt that if that machinery of the Advisory Council functions properly, many of the grievances which arc ventilated in Court will find their adequate consideration at the hands of the Advisory Council. I, therefore, see no substance in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. If the grounds of detention are correct, and we have no reason to think otherwise, they disclose that the conduct of the petitioner constitutes a menace to the State and is prejudicial to public safety. The Provincial Government may have, therefore, ample justification for his detention. As, however, we have decided to set the petitioner at liberty for reasons given here below due to unfortunate non-compliance by the authorities with the mandatory provisions of the law as it then stood or as it stands at present, we hope that the petitioner will utilise his liberty for the benefit of and is service of the State and prove himself a worthy and responsible citizen of his country.