SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
Mohd. Salim Khan Petitioner
Versus
Shri C. C. Bose, Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal and another, Respondent.
Writ Petn. No. 435 of 1971, D/- 25-4-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. S. Gupta, Advocate Amicus curiae, for Petitioner, Mr. G. L. Mukhoti, Advocate, and Mr. G. S. Chatterjee, Advocate for M/s. Sukumar Basu and Co., for Respondents.
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 32 and 356 and 357(2) - Evidence Act – Section 3(3) r/w (1),3(2)(b) and (d) - Committed mischief by setting fire - Threw bombs aiming - Impugned order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, being satisfied that it was necessary to detain petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order - In pursuance of the said order the petitioner was arrested on the same day and has since then been detained in Jail - At the time of his arrest he was served with a copy of the grounds of detention - Petitioner along with his associates including one committed mischief by setting fire to a double decker State bus and threw bombs aiming them at the said bus causing there by damage to the said bus and also panic and disorder in that area- Whether he was in jail in connection with those proceedings on day when impugned order was passed – Held, learned counsel next urged that though constitutional validity of Act has been recently upheld in State of W. B. v. Ashok Dey, (1972) 1 SCC 199 that decision requires reconsideration in as much as the circumstances in which the President s rule was ushered in West Bengal and which formed the considerations on which this Court upheld the Act s validity no longer subsist - Assuming that the circumstances owing to which Act was enacted no longer subsist, that is a matter primarily for the Legislature and not for this Court to consider - It is true that the President s rule came to an end recently, but under Art. 357 (2) of the Constitution an Act passed by President thereunder remains in force for one year after Proclamation made under Art. 356 has ceased to operate - Operation of such an Act is not conterminous with the subsistence of the said proclamation- There is, thus, no justification for the plea that the aforesaid decision, only recently given, needs reconsideration - There is, thus, no merit in either of the two contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner - Consequently, the petition must fail and is accordingly rejected - Petition dismissed.
Judgment
SHELAT, J. :- In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner Mohd. Salim Khan, a detenu under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, being President s Act XIX of 1970, seeks to challenge the legality of the order of detention passed against him and his detention thereunder.
2. The impugned order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas on June 18, 1971 under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, being satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner was arrested on the same day and has since then been detained in Jail. At the time of his arrest he was served with a copy of the grounds of detention.
3. There is no dispute that various steps following the issuance of the said order as envisaged by the Act were taken by the detaining authorities within the time prescribed by and in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner had also made a representation which was duly considered by the Government along with the other relevant materials connected with his detention and was rejected. His case was also placed before the Advisory Board as required by the Act with all the relevant materials including the said representation. The Board reported, after considering those materials including his said representation, that in its opinion there was sufficient cause justifying his detention.
4. The grounds of detention referred to above stated:
1. That on April 22, 1971, at about 5.30 a.m. the petitioner along with his associates including one Dulal Dey, alias Dulal Kumar Bose, committed mischief by setting fire to a double decker State bus at Chetla Central Road and threw bombs aiming them at the said bus causing there by damage to the said bus and also panic and disorder in that area;
2. That on the same day at about 12.50 p. m. he along with his associates including one Anup Ratan Pal hurled bombs at a bus No. WBY 427 belonging to South Point School at Southend Park and also committed mischief to the said bus causing damage to it, and that as result of his said act panic and confusion prevailed in that area.
There can be no manner of doubt that the acts stated in the said grounds and allege to have been committed by the petitioner would fall under Section 3 (2) (b) and also (d) of the Act, and would, therefore, be relevant to the objects in relation to which an order of detention could be validly passed under the Act.
5. But in his representation dated July 1, 1971, which the petitioner submitted to the Government from Alipore Central Jail where he was then detained, the petitioner asserted in paras 3 and 4 thereof, firstly, that he was not acquainted with Chetla and Southend Park areas, and therefore, could not have thrown bombs as alleged, and secondly, as regards his hurling bombs at 12.50 p.m. that day, he was busy with his studies in the National Library, Calcutta as he had to make preparations for the B. A. Part I Examination to be held on June 22, 1971.
6. It appears, however, that prior to the passing of the impugned order on June, 18, 1971, the petitioner had been arrested by the police on May 22, 1971 in connection with the two incidents alleged in the said grounds for detention and proceedings had thereafter been taken against him in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Midnapore. In those proceedings the petitioner appears to have taken a somewhat different plea of alibi, in support of which he had produced an affidavit of one Sk. Nuruddin Ahmed dated September 23, 1971. In that affidavit the deponent Nuruddin Ahmed had stated that the petitioner was his nephew and that "on the occasion of the First Rice of may son I invited the said Md. Salim Khan and his parent and other (s) of his family to attend the ceremony and to take part in the festival. On this occasion Sal
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.