ISRAIL SK Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF WEST DINAJPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate of West Dinajpur, West Bengal, in exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The District Magistrate felt satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The petitioner has filed this petition from jail for releasing him from jail custody by grant of a writ of habeas corpus. The order of detention was made against the petitioner on 20-6-1972 in pursuance of which he was arrested and put in prison on 22-6-1972. The grounds of detention were also served upon the detenu on 22-6- 1972 and they read as follows:

(2.) Learned counsel who assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner made the following submissions:

(3.) There is absolutely no substance in the last two points urged on behalf of the petitioner. They may be shortly disposed of thus. At the time the petitioner was intercepted with his associates while carrying the Telegraph Copper Wires, members of the public were not under any fear or terror but subsequently it is not unreasonable to think that because of terrorizing by the petitioner or his associates they were not prepared to give evidence in court. It is a matter of common knowledge that witnesses are terribly afraid of deposing against hardened criminals. It is well settled that the mere fact that the detenu was discharged in a criminal case does not mean that a valid order of detention could not be passed against him in connection with those very incidents vide Ramayan Harijan v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 758. Counsel on behalf of the State showed us from the original file that the person who served the grounds on the detenu had explained the grounds in Bangla to the petitioner, which was his mother tongue. The serving officer had made an endorsement to this effect in the Service Report and as a matter of fact the petitioner had filed his representation in the same language.