SALIM Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(SC)-1975-1-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on January 27,1975

SALIM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Chandrachud, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Sk. Salim, challenges by this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order was passed on June 13, 1972 avowedly with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The particulars furnished to the petitioner refer to two incidents of theft dated January 31 and February 23, 1972. The former relates to a theft of underground copper cables and the latter to a theft of A. C. S. R. Conductors. The particulars further mention that on February 24, 1972 the petitioner and two of his named associates were found in possession of 30 K. Gs. of stolen A. C. S. R. Conductors.
(2.) Section 3 (1) of the Act empowers the Central Government and the State Government to pass orders of detention for the reasons therein mentioned. Section 3 (2) confers power on District Magistrates, specially empowered Additional District Magistrates and Commissioners of Police to pass orders of detention for reasons specified therein. If an order of detention is passed by any of these officers, "he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government:" That is the clear mandate of S. 3 (3).
(3.) The District Magistrate, in the instant case, made the detention order on June 13, 1972 and on the 15th he reported the fact of making the order to the State Government. The question for consideration, which has been argued with some fervor by the learned counsel appearing amicus curiae for the petitioner, is whether the District Magistrate can be said to have reported the making of the order "forthwith" as required by Section 3 (3).;


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