NARAYAN DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (briefly the Act), in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order was passed by the District Magistrate, Nadia, on 11-4-73. The ground on which the order was founded is as follows:-

(2.) The order was served upon the detenu who made a representation which was considered by the Government and rejected. We have been taken through the time schedule of various orders passed by the different authorities and we do not find any illegality in that behalf. As a matter of fact, the learned advocate, Mr. Narayana Rao, appearing as amicus curiae for the petitioner, has not raised any ground of illegality in that connection.

(3.) Since, however, the District Magistrate in his affidavit (Para, 6) has stated that he based his subjective satisfaction only on the ground mentioned in the detention order although other materials were placed before him, we examined the records of the case history of the detenu. After a careful examination of the record and the history sheet, we find that the District Magistrate, having regard to the grave nature of the act committed by the detenu, was bona fide satisfied that the said act was sufficient for making the detention order. Mr. Narayana Rao, however, submits that unless the facts stated in the ground are proved to the satisfaction of this Court, no action can be taken under the Act. We are unable to accede to this submission. It is because that the act complained of cannot perhaps be satisfactorily proved in a court of law or that the witnesses are unwilling to come forward being already terrified by the enormity of the act perpetrated that action sometimes has to be taken under the Act to prevent further commission of offences of similar nature. Besides, it is not the function of the Court to examine the truth or otherwise of the allegations mentioned in the grounds. The grounds are assumed by the Court to be true and it is well settled that the scope of inquiry in a case of this nature is very limited.