RANJIT DAM Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(SC)-1972-5-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on May 03,1972

RANJIT DAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Shelat, J. - (1.) This petition came up for hearing before us on April 24, 1972. After hearing the arguments, both on behalf of the petitioner and the State of West Bengal, we found that the petitioner's detention was not sustainable. We, therefore, directed release of the petitioner and said at that time we would give our reasons for that order later on. We now proceed to give those reasons.
(2.) The petitioner was detained under an order dated June 23, 1971 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under power reserved to him under sub-s. (1) read with sub-s (3) of S. 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The said order stated that it was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order". Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was arrested on June 28 1971 and detained in the Dum Dum Central Jail. The grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner first recited that he was being detained to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and then set out the particulars thereof which ran as follows: "That on the night of 1-6-71 at about 01.30 hours, while committing theft of rice from Wagon No. SE 39751 at Bengaon Railway Station Yard, you and your associates charged bombs upon the on-duty R.P.F. party with a view to do away with their lives, when challenged by them. As a result of your bomb charge SR 3179 Himungshu Bhushan Dhar Sharma of the R.P.F. party sustained burn injury on his person. By explosion of bombs you and your associates created panic in the station area and in the adjoining locality you created disturbance of public order thereby."
(3.) The ground for detention thus did not mention that the acts which the petitioner was alleged there to have committed had affected or had any relation to the security of the State, though that expression, as aforesaid, was included in the impugned detention order.;


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