IN RE: K. RAJAGOPALA RAO AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE eleven applications raise common questions for consideration and also are based on facts which are common.

(2.) ON the 30th of January, 10,48, there was a rally of the members of the Rashtria Swayam Sevak Sangh at Vijayawada on which day Mahatma Gandhi died. On the next day, the 31st January, according to the grounds served on the detenus in these petitions, the petitioners and others conspired to attack the members of the Rashtria Swayam Sevak Sangh and in the various incidents that occurred that day, some members of that body were injured and a worker of the municipality was also killed. Some of the petitioners were arrested on the same day while others were arrested by the police on subsequent dates. A case was registered against 71 accused including the petitioners under various sections of the Indian Penal Code which was later numbered as P.R.C. No. 1 of 1048 on the file of the Stationary Sub -Magistrate of Vijayawada. The petitioners and the other accused in the case after arrest were kept in the sub -jail of Vijayawada until 7th April, 1948, when they were transferred for some reason to the Central Jail, Rajahmundry. On the 10th and nth April, 1948, the District Magistrate of Krishna under the authority delegated to him under Section 15 of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act (Act I of 1947) passed orders of detention against the petitioners and seemed to have also prepared the grounds of detention on the said dates. The detention orders, however, were not given immediate effect as the applicants were already in judicial custody. The petitioners moved for bail in the District Court, Krishna, but they were unsuccessful; and thereafter they came up to this Court and on the 18th May 1948, the petitioners and others were directed to be released by Yahya Ali, J., on bail on their furnishing security each in his own bond for the sum of Rs. 500 with two sureties for each of the said accused for Rs. 500 for each surety to the satisfaction of the Stationary Sub -Magistrate of Vijayawada. The applicants in pursuance of this order, furnished the necessary bail and on the 21st May, 1949, they were released but immediately after their release, at the Central Jail, Rajahmundry, they were arrested in pursuance of the orders of detention passed earlier by the District Magistrate of Krishna on the 10th and 11th April, 1948.

(3.) THE first contention urged on behalf of the applicants is that as there is a long interval of time between the date of their arrest on the 31st January, 1948 and the passing of the orders of detention under Section 2(1) of the Act, it could not be said that the District Magistrate could have been satisfied that these applicants were acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety or maintenance of public order. The chief ground mentioned by the Government in the grounds served upon the detenus is the activity of these persons on the 31st January, 1948, and the active part alleged to have been taken by them on that day in the conspiracy to attack the members of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh. This activity of theirs, it is alleged, is not proximate enough to justify an order of detention under Section 2(1) of the Act. The interval, it would be seen, between the occurrence on the 31st January, 1948, and the order of detention is more than 2 months. The ground on which the order of detention was based is certainly within the purview of the Act and is such as would certainly justify an order of detention under Section 2(1) of the Act. No definite period can be fixed so as to restrict the activity of the person which would be open for consideration by the detaining authority to pass an order of detention under Section 2 (1) of the Act; that must vary according to circumstances of each case. The incident and the occurn nee which are complained of, if true, is certainly a serious one and must have endangered the public peace on that date. The District Magistrate would certainly be within his jurisdiction to pass an order of detention on a prejudicial activity of that description. Merely because there is an interval of more than two months between the date of the order of detention and the date on which the offences were committed we cannot hold that the period is unreasonable so as to make the activity remote so as to preclude the District Magistrate from taking it into his consideration. The delay between the date of receipt of the explanation and the date of sending the matter to the advisory council has been in a way explained by the District Magistrate and we may also take notice of the fact that perhaps he was also busy in dealing with the then existing trouble on the Hyderabad border. ?