Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- The District Magistrate, Howrah passed on June 12, 1971 the impugned order of detention under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 directing the petitioner s detention thereunder. The order stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary to do so in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On July 13, 1971, the petitioner was accordingly arrested and detained in Dum Dum Central Jail.

2. The grounds of detention served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest read as follows:

(1) On 17-8-70 at about 02.00 hours, you and your associates Bheja @ Tarapada Ghosh, Bablu, Kartic and others attacked the members of R. G. Party who were on duty near Jatadhari Park by hurling bombs towards them. When chased by them, you and your associates again hurled bombs towards them and managed to escape and thereby disturbed public order.

(2) On 10-4-71 at about 16.00 hours, you and your associates being armed with sword assaulted one Basudeb Laha of 56/18, Banarjee Bagan Lane at Sambhu Halder Lane near Jatadhari Park causing injuries on his person. When objected by the members of the public, you also terrorised them by brandishing the sword.

(3) On 1-5-71 at 15.00 hours, you and your associates Tapan, Kartic and others being armed with bombs and other deadly weapons demanded money from one Banshi Show of 28, Haraganj Road, P. S. Malipanchghora. When refused, you and your associates assaulted him. The local people and the neighbouring shop keepers objected. At this you and your associates became more violent and terrorised them by throwing bombs towards them. Consequently they became panicky and fled away.

3. Sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act authorised inter alia a District Magistrate to direct detention of any person in respect of whom he is satisfied that such detention should be ordered with a view to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the security of the State of West Bengal, or the maintenance of public order. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 contains a special definition of the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order" to mean the acts enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e) thereof. Clause (d), which is the only relevant clause for purposes of this petition provides as follows:

"(d) committing, or instigating any person to commit, any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extending to seven years or more or any offence under the Arms Act, 1959 or the Explosives Substances Act, 1908, where the commission of such offence disturbs, or is likely to disturb, public order."

4. It is not disputed that the petitioner s alleged activities set out in grounds (1) and (3) of the said grounds of detention fell under Clause (d) being offences under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and also being such that they did or were likely to disturb public order. The only contention raised for our determination was that the activities set out in ground No. (2), namely, causing injuries with a sword would constitute an offence under Section 324 of the Penal Code, an offence neither punishable with death, nor life imprisonment nor imprisonment for a term of seven years. Therefore, ground No. (2) would be, it was urged, a ground which would not fall under the said definition, and would, therefore, be an extraneous ground rendering the impugned order invalid.

5. The contention in our view has no substances as the offence alleged in ground No. (2) would fall under Clause (d) of Section 3 (2) of the Act inasmuch as it will be one punishable under the Arms Act, LIV of 1959.

6. Under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Arms Act, the word arms inter alia means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offence or defence and includes firearms