ISRAIL SK Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF WEST DINAJPUR
LAWS(SC)-1974-11-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on November 26,1974

ISRAIL SK. Appellant
VERSUS
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF WEST DINAJPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Untwalia, J. - (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:"You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) on the ground that you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, as evidenced by the particulars given below: 1. That on 13-5-72 at about 12-15 hours you along with your associates were found carrying 11 bundles - weighing 300 kgs. of Telegraph Copper Wires in a Bullock cart under cover of "CHHAI" from Bihar side to Islampur P. S. area near farm Colony, P. S. Islampur through the open field. Being challenged by the public, you and your associates stated that you were carrying an ailing Muslim lady inside the Cart but the public being suspicious searched the cart and found 11 bundles of Copper Wire inside the cart. The public seized the article, arrested you with your associates and produced at Islampur P. S. on 13-5-1972. From the above, it is clear that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community causing serious disruption to the communication system affecting operation of communication facilities to the public."
(2.) Learned counsel who assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner made the following submissions: (1) That a single act of carrying Telegraph Copper Wire in a bullock cart could not reasonably, justifiably and legally lead to the conclusion that the petitioner was acting or likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. (2) That the reasoning given for discharge of the petitioner in the criminal case that witnesses were not coming forth to support the prosecution was false and contrary to the statement made in the grounds. (3) That the petitioner was illiterate and the grounds were not explained to him in his mother tongue.
(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.;


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