SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 53

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT, H.R. KHANNA, K.K. MATHEW, JJ.
Janendra Nath Roy, Petitioner
Versus
The State of W.B., Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 389 of 1971,
D/- 24-1-1972.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. S. Lakshminarasu, Advocate amicus curiae, for Petitioner, Mr. Dilip Sinha, Advocate, & Mr. G. S. Chatterjee Advocate for M/s. Sukumar :Basu and Co.

Headnote:FUNCTIONS OF ADVISORY BOARD AND GOVT. IN RESPECT OF DETeNUE ARE DIFFERENT

       -held, Govt. duty to consider the representation of the detenue is different, independent of and distinct from the function of Advisory Board. Such consideration is not to be postponed till the case is referred to the Board.

       -see decision in J.N. Roy v. State of W.B., AIR 1972 SC 2143=(1972) I SCA 452; Abdul Karim v. State of W.B., AIR 1969 SC 1028=(1969) 3 SCR 479.

Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- This petition is for a writ of habeas corpus and is directed against an order of detention passed against the petitioner on April 16, 1971 by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, under Sec. 3 (1) read with sub-s. (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act President s Act 19 of 1970. The order recites that it was passed on the District Magistrate being satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order , one of the two grounds provided by the Act for exercise of the power of detention thereunder.

2. In consequence of the said order, the petitioner was placed under arrest on April 21, 1971 and detained in jail. As required by the Act, he was served with the grounds of detention on that very day. The District Magistrate reported the case to the State Government on April 16, 1971 and the State Government thereafter on April 26, 1971 approved the said order. On that day, the petitioner s detention to the Central Government. On May 19, 1971, the State Government received a representation from the petitioner against his said detention. On May 20, 1971, it referred the petitioner s case together with the said representation to the Advisory Board constituted under Sec. 9 of the Act. On June 16, 1971, the State Government considered the said representation and rejected it. On June 28, 1971, the Advisory Board, after considering the petitioner s case, made its report to the State Government to the effect that there was sufficient cause for this detention. Thereupon, the State Government on September 6, 1971 confirmed the detention order and the continuation of the petitioner s detention. The petitioner was informed of the Government s said decision on September 17, 1971.

3. The grounds for detention furnished to the petitioner recited four activities in respect of which the District Magistrate was said to have been satisfied for passing the impugned order. These were:

(a) that on July 5, 1970 at 9.25 p.m. the petitioner and some of his associates trespassed into the projector room of a cinema theatre known as Anuradha Cinema Hall at Benachity, while a picture called Yadgar was being shown, and threw bombs which set fire to the cinema screen, caused other damage to the cinema property and created panic and alarm among those watching the picture, as also the residents of that locality;

(b) that on July 14, 1970 at about 9 p.m. the petitioner and his associates, armed with explosives, namely bombs, assembled at the crossing of Ram Mohun Avenue and Dayananda Road, and with a view to cause the murder of Lt. Col. Chattar Singh, hurled two bombs at him while he was returning home in a jeep from his official duties, thereby causing multiple injuries to the said officer, and fear amongst the people of that locality;

(c) that on March 8, 1971, at about 9.30 p.m. the petitioner together with his associates, armed with deadly weapons, such as daggers, stabbed a bus conductor near Nehru Stadium at Durgapur and caused his immediate death, the reason for the said murder being the refusal of the conductor to fall in line with and promote the cause of the extremist political group to which the petitioner and his associates belonged; and

(d) that on April 5, 1971, at about 1.30 p.m. the petitioner and his associates, armed again with daggers and other lethal weapons, trespassed into N. E. College Post Office at Durgapur, and forcing the staff thereof at the point of daggers to leave the Post Office, set fire to its records and furniture, thereby creating panic amongst the local inhabitants."

4. Since the impugned order and the various steps taken by the detaining authorities enjoined upon by the Act appear to have been followed up in accordance with and within the specified times laid down in the Act, counsel appearing for the petitioner raised only two contentions. These were (1) that the State Government was in error in










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top