LALLAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The true import of the words - -"the general nature of the material allegations against him" - -employed in Sec. 3(1) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (and its predecessor Ordinances) and the necessary requirements therefor, is the significant question necessitating this Reference to the Full Bench. Equally at issue is the correctness of the earlier view in : 1980 B.L.J. 167 : 1980 PLJR 93 (Birendra Kumar Singh v/s. State of Bihar and others). The facts, which are not in serious dispute, may be briefly noticed with relevance to the question aforesaid. On the 30th of October, 1980, respondent no. 2, the Deputy Commissioner of Palamau at Daltonganj initiated a proceeding under Sec. 3 of the Bihar Crime Control Ordinance, 1979 (vide Annexure -2) on the basis of information laid before him and directed that a notice be issued against the petitioner under sub -section (1) thereof. He further receded that the petitioner being an anti -social element whose activities could not be prevented otherwise than by his immediate arrest, issued warrants against him under sub -section (4) of Sec. 3 aforesaid. In compliance therewith, the petitioner was arrested on the 8th of March, 1981 and was remanded to jail custody on the same date by the District Magistrate. A grievance is sought to be made out that the petitioner's release on bail was inordinately delayed despite the fact that he was willing to execute a bond or offer sureties for his release. Admittedly, on the 16th of May, 1981, the petitioner was served with a notice (Annexure -3) under Sec. 3(1) of the Ordinance. This notice expressly stated that the petitioner was an anti -social element and further specified that he had been found habitually committing heinous crimes punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Details of seven police cases registered against him in Sadar Police Station and Lesliganj Police Station with the respective case number, the year of offence and the particular Ss. of the offence under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, were duly given in the said notice. It was further mentioned therein that the petitioner had proved himself to be a terror to the society and as such the peace -loving people have apprehension of their safety at his hands and, therefore, witnesses were reluctant to come forward to depose against him which amounted to tampering with the evidence. The notice directed the petitioner to appear before respondent No. 2 on the 19th of May, 1981, and to tender an explanation in writing against the material allegations for showing cause why an order under sub -section (3) of Sec. 3 may not be passed against him. He was further intimated that if he desires to examine himself or any other witnesses, then he may furnish their names and addresses in support of his explanation.

(2.) It would appear that the petitioner did not choose to show cause and tender any explanation in compliance with the notice (annexure 3) under Sec. 3(1) and instead has preferred this application for quashing the entire proceedings against him primarily on the ground that the said notice did not adequately contain the general nature of material allegations against him. This Court whilst admitting the present application directed the release of the petitioner if he offered bail and stayed further proceedings under the Ordinances initiated against the petitioner till the final decision of the writ petition. Later the case came up for hearing before the Division Bench on the 19th of December, 1984, when basic reliance was sought to be placed on : 1980 BLJ 167 : 1980 PLJR 93 (supra) as also a number of other cases referred to in the writ petition for contending that the whole proceedings against the petitioner was vitiated as the notice under Sec. 3(1) did not precisely specify the nature of the material allegations against the petitioner. Learned Counsel further sought to literally import the stringent requirements of the grounds to be furnished for detention under Sec. 12 of the Act for the proceedings for externment under Sec. 3 as well. Raising some doubt about the correctness of the earlier precedents on the point and the alleged identity of the proceedings for externment with those of detention, the matter has been referred for an authoritative adjudication to the Full Bench and that is how it is before us now.

(3.) Ere one comes to the core of the matter, it seems apt to recall that the notice herein was issued under Sec. 3 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Ordinance'). Further, it is common ground that the said Sec. 3 after passing through the interregnum of successive Ordinances is now incorporated in the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). That these provisions are totally identical and in pari materia is not in dispute. Again the Bihar Control of Crimes Rules, 1978, which were framed under the Bihar Control of Crimes Ordinance, 1978 are, by virtue of Sec. 27 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, deemed to have been made under the Act since it is common ground that no fresh rules have been framed under Sec. 29 thereof. Consequently, the body of Rules and in particular rule 4 and form I in the Schedule applicable under the earlier Ordinance are equally continued under the Act. In view of the identity of the provisions reference hereinafter is being made not to the ephemeral provisions of the Ordinances but to the identical provisions of the Act and the Rules.