SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4th October 1951
H.J. KANIA C.J.I., MAHAJAN AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.
Bhim Sen and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab. Criminal
Appeals Nos. 15 to 49 of 1951.
Advocates appeared
Shri Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate, (Shri R. L. Kohli and Shri Ram Kumar, Advocates with him) instructed by Shri R. S. Narula, Agent (in Nos. 45 and 49), Shri N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (Shri Hardayal Hardy and Shri R. L. Kohli, Advocates with him) instructed by Shri R. S. Narula, Agent (in No. 45 of 1951), Shri R. L. Kohli, Advocate, instructed by Shri R. S. Narula, Agent (in No. 47 of 1951), Shri Hardayal Hardy, Advocate instructed by Shri R. S. Narula, Agent (in No. 48 of 1951 )- for Appellants; Shri S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General of Punjab, (Shri H. S. Doabia, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri P.A. Mehta, Agent-for Respondent in all the five appeals; Shri M. C. Setalved, Attorney-General for India (Shri G. N. Joshi, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent - for intervener, Union of India (in No. 45 of 1951).
Held: (1) "Instances of past activities are relevant to be considered ill giving rise to the subjective mental conviction of the District Magistrate that the appellants were likely to indulge in objectionable activities. The grounds which were given for the detention are relevant and the question whether they are sufficient or not is not for the decision of the Court. The legislature has made only the subjective satisfaction of the authority making the order essential for passing the order. The contention that because in the Amending Act of 1951 an Advisory Board is constituted, which can supervise and override the decision taken by the executive authority, and therefore the question whether the grounds are sufficient to give rise to• the satisfaction has become a justifiable issue in Court, is clearly unsound. The satisfaction for making the initial order is and has always been under the Preventive Detention Act, that of the authority making the order. Because the Amending Act of 1951 establishes a supervisory authority that discretion and subjective test is not taken away and by the establishment of the Advisory Board, in our opinion the Court is not given the jurisdiction to decide whether the subjective decision of the authority making the order was right or not." (per Kania C.J.).
(2) Where a statement of fact contained in the affidavit filed in court by the detaining authority is disputed, the matter has to be considered by the Advisory Board. The question of the truth of that statement is not within the jurisdiction of the Court to decide.
Judgment
Kania, C.J.I.- These are five companion appeals from the judgments of the High Court of East Punjab and the principal point argued before us is as to the legality of the detention of the appellants under the Preventive Detention Act on the ground that they are engaged in black marketing in cotton piecegoods.
2. The Jullundur wholesale cloth syndicate was formed to work out the distribution of cloth under the Government of Punjab Control (Cloth.) Order passed under the Essential Supplies Act. Certain persons who held licences as wholesale dealers in cloth formed themselves into a corporation and all cloth controlled by the Government was distributed in the district to the retail quota holders through them. The Government allotted quotas to the retailers and orders were issued by the Government for giving each retailer certain bales under the distribution control. If some of the retail licence holders did not take delivery of the quotas allotted to them under the Notification of 4-10-1950 issued by the Government of India, Department of Industries and Supplies, it was, inter alia, provided that the wholesale syndicate may give the bales not so lifted to another retail dealer. It may be noted that all along the price for the cloth to be sold wholesale and retail had been fixed under Government orders. The Syndicate was suspected to be dealing in black market and had been warned against its activities by the District Magistrate of Jullundar several times. On 7-6-1951, an order was issued by the District Organiser, Civil Supplies and Rationing, Jullundar, to the managing agents of the wholesale cloth corporation, Jullundar City, intimating that they were strictly forbidden to dispose of any unlifted stock against unexpired terms without his prior permission in writing, They were further directed that thenceforth no such stock would be allowed to be sold to an individual retailer, but permission would be granted to sell the same to Associations of retailers only. It was stated that this letter was not in accordance with cl. 5 of the Notification of the Government of India dated 4-l0-1950, which authorised the wholesale syndicate to be at liberty to sell unlifted cloth to any other retailer or an association of retail dealers of the same district. It may be further noted that the Cotton Cloth Control Order was in operation even prior to 1950. For sometime control on the distribution of cloth was lifted but the price remained under the control of the Government. During that time it has been alleged that the appellants and several others sold cloth at rates higher than those fixed by the Government. Even when the distribution and price were both controlled the manufacturing mills were allowed to sell at prices fixed by the Government a certain percentage of cloth which was not taken by the Government under its control. This was described as free sale cloth and it was alleged that the appellants and several others were doing black marketing in this free sale cloth.
3. By an order passed by the District Magistrate on 19-6-1951 he directed that the appellants be detained under S. 3(2), Preventive Detention Act, to prevent them from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of cloth, essential to the community. On 2-7-1951, the District Magistrate, Jullundar, directed that the appellants be committed to District Jail, Jallandar, from 2-7-1951 until 1-10-1951, The appellants were detained accordingly. The grounds for their detention were given to them on the morning of 6-71951. The grounds set out the activities of the appellants as managing agents or partners in different firms or employees of the said firms or corporations. It was stated that they had been disposing of most of the stocks of cloth received for the Jullundar District in the black market at exorbitant rates from June 1949 to October 1950 during the period when control on distribution was removed and that even after the reimposition of that contro
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.