SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th January 1951
H.J. KANIA, C.J.I.; FAZL ALI, PATANJALI SASTRI, B.K. MUKHERJEA, S.R. DAS AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ.
The State of Bombay - Appellant
Versus
Alma Ram Shridhar Vaidya - Respondent.
Case No. 22 of 1950.
Advocates appeared
Shri M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (Shri G. N. Joshi, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent - for Appellant; Shri A. S. R. Chari and Bawa Shiv Charan Singh, Advocate, instructed by Shri V. P. K. Nambiyar, Agent for Respondent.
-held, grounds of detention are to be communicated to detenue within reasonable time if no fixed time is prescribed in statue; failure to furnish grounds with speedy addition of such particulars as would enable detenue to make earliest representation can be an invasion of fundamental rights; no new grounds can be added to fortify original order of detention.
-held, also, mere vagueness in ground itself may not amount to malafide.
-see decision in State of Bombay v. Alma Ram Sidhar Vaidya, AIR 1951 SC.157=1951 SCJ 208 = 1952 SCR 167; Tarapada De v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1951 SC 174=1951 SCJ 233=1951 SCR 212; Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 350=1952 SCR 756=1952 SCJ 521=1952 SCA 648.
Judgment
Kania, C.J.I. (On behalf of himself and Fazl Ali J., Mukherjea, J. and Chandrasekhara Aiyar J.)-This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay, ordering the release of the respt. who was detained in custody under a detention order made under the Preventive Detention Act (IV [4] of 1950). The respondent was first arrested on 18-12-1948 under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947 (VI [6] of 1947), but was released on 11-11-1949. He was arrested again on 21-4-1950 under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and on 29-4-1950 grounds for his detention were supplied to him. They were in the following terms : "That you are engaged and are likely to be engaged in promoting acts of sabotage on railway and railway property in Greater Bombay." The respondent filed a habeas corpus petition on 31-7-1950 in which, after reciting his previous arrest and release, in paras. 6 and 7 he mentioned as follows : "(6) On his release the applicant left Bombay and stayed out of Bombay, that is, in Ratlam and in Delhi. (7) On 20-4-1950, he returned to Bombay and was immediately arrested as stated above." He contended that the sole aim of the Govt. in ordering his detention was not the preservation of public order or the security of the State, but the locking up of active trade unionists who belonged to the All India Trade Union Congress. He contended that the ground is "delightfully vague and does not mention when, where, or what kind of sabotage or how the applicant promoted it. He further urged that the ground gave no particulars and, therefore, was not a ground as required to be furnished under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He stated that the present appellant acted mala fide, for a collateral purpose, outside the scope of the Act, and that the applicant s detention in any event was illegal and mala fide. When this petition was presented to the Court on 9-8-1950 it directed the issue of a notice to the Commissioner of Police. Pending the disposal of the Rule, on 26-8-1950 the Commissioner of Police sent a communication to the respondent as follows : "In pursuance of S. 7, Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (IV [4] of 1950), and in continuation of my communication No. 227 dated 29-4-1950 the following further particulars are hereby communicated to you in connection with the grounds on which a detention order has been made against you under S. 3 (1) of the said Act : That the activities mentioned in the grounds furnished to you were being carried on by you in Greater Bombay between January 1950 and the date of your detention ; and In all probability you will continue to do so.
2. If, in view of the particulars now supplied, you wish to make a further representation on / against the order under which you are detained, you should address it to the Government of Bombay and forward it through the Superintendent of Arthur Road Prison, Bombay." 2. On 30-8- 1950 the Commissioner of Police filed an affidavit against the petition of the respondent in which it was stated that the objectionable activities were carried on by the applicant between the months of January 1950 and the date of detention. It further stated that in or about the month of January law there was a move for a total strike on the railways in India in the month of March 1950 and the applicant was taking prominent part to see that the strike was brought about and was successful. As a means to make the strike successful and bring about total cessation of work on all railways, the applicant and his associates were advocating sabotage on railways and railway property in Greater Bombay. He further stated that reliable materials were put before him of the respondent being engaged in such activities by experienced police officers. He added that although the railways strike in the month of March did not materialise, the idea of bringing about such strike as soon as convenient continued to be entertained and the present respondent was actively engaged in bringing about
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.