T.P. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This is an application under Sec. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of detention made under Sec. 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act by the District Magistrate with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is not in dispute that a copy of the order of detention made under Sec. 3 and the grounds were duly served on the detenu.
(2.) Mr. Chatterjee, for the Petitioner, has raised three objections against the validity of the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate and against the validity of the detention of the Petitioner in pursuance thereof. His first argument is that the facts constituting the grounds for detention served on the detenu under Sec. 7 of the Preventive Detention Act not having mentioned the purpose of the detention, the grounds as drawn up and served are bad in law. His second contention is that the grounds (ga), (gha) and (cha) of the grounds as mentioned by the District Magistrate are vague, inasmuch as they do not contain sufficient particulars to enable a proper representation being made against the same. His third contention is that, so far as the incident mentioned in ground (ka) is concerned, it is not proximate in time to the date of the order for detention.
(3.) In support of his first contention, Mr. Chatterjee has referred us to the Supreme Court decision in Naresh Chandra v/s. State of West Bengal : A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1335 and to the following observation in that judgment: Thus on a consideration of the provisions of Ss. 3 and 7 of the Act, it may be observed that the detenu has to be served with a copy of the order passed by the Authority contemplated by Sub -section (2) of Sec. 3 containing, firstly, recitals in terms of one or more of the sub -clauses of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sec. 3(1), which we may call the 'preamble' and secondly, ground contemplated by Sec. 7, namely, conclusions of fact which have led to the passing of the order of detention, informing the detenu as to why he was being detained. On the basis of this observation it was contended that the grounds furnished to the detenu in this case prepared under Sec. 7 of the Preventive Detention Act are not proper grounds in law inasmuch as they do not contain the 'preamble' mentioned in the observation quoted above and that the failure to mention in a preamble the purpose of the detention would make the grounds bad in law. It is true that the purpose of detention was not mentioned in connection with the grounds that were served.;