Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. Chandrachud, CJI., V.D. TULZAPURKAR, J.
The State of Rajasthan, Appellant
Versus
Sukhpal Singh and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 1973
Decided on 6-12-1982.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. D. Sharma Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. D. Mookerjee S. Advocate, (for Nos. 1-4) Dr. B. S. Chauhan Advocate with him (for Nos. 1 to 4), Mr. R. K. Garg, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. K. Panda and Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain. Advocates with him ( for Nos. 2 and 3), for Respondents.
* S. P. Criminal Appeals Nos. 580 and 581 of 1972. D/- 13-11-1972 (Raj).
Held: A clear distinction has to be drawn between preventive detention in which anticipatory and precautionary action is taken to prevent the recurrence of apprehended events, and punitive detention under which the action is taken after the event has already happened. It is true that the ordinary criminal process of trial is not to be circumvented and short-circuited by apparently handy and easier resort to preventive detention. But the possibility of launching a criminal prosecution cannot be said to be an absolute bar to an order of preventive detention. Nor would it be correct to say that if such possibility is not present in the mind of the detaining authority the order of detention would necessarily be bad. The failure of the detaining authority to consider the desirability of launching a criminal prosecution before ordering preventive detention may in the circumstances of a case lead to the conclusion that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the important question as to whether it was necessary to make an order of preventive detention but such is not the case here. In this regard one has to bear in mind the relevant facts and circumstances of a case including the time and place concerned.
Further Held: The question is whether a particular person is disposed to commit the prejudicial acts. The duty of deciding this question is thrown upon the State. The justification is suspicion or reasonable probability and not criminal charge which can only be warranted by legal evidence. It is true that in a case in which the liberty of such person is concerned we cannot go beyond natural construction of the statute. It is the duty of this Court to see that a law depriving the person of his liberty without the safeguards available even to a person charged with crime is strictly complied with. We have however to remember that individual liberty is allowed to be curtailed by an anticipatory action only in interest of what is enumerated in the statute. (Para 8)
(ii) Preventive Detention - Jurisdiction of courts to interfere With the orders of - Scope of. (Para 9)
(iii) National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2) r/ws. 14-A- Detention under - The terrorist and disruptive activities are naturally disruptive of public peace, tranquillity and development - Meaning of the word disruption. (Para 9)
(iv) Constitution of India - Article 22(5) - National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2) r/ws. 14-A - Detention under – Challenged - Delay in disposing of the detenus representation - Detenus representation dated 1-9-1988 was disposed of by the State Government on 28-10-1988 - The detenu was informed only on 8-11-1988 - Detenus constitutional right to prompt disposal of his representation was denied - The impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Held: That after receipt of the xerox copy from the Central Government the State Government took only 13 days including, 4 holidays in disposing of the representation. Considering the situation prevailing and the consultation needed in the matter, the State Government could not have been unmindful of urgency in the matter. But the facts remain that it took more than two months from the date of submission of the representation to the date of informing the detenu of the result of his representation. Eight days were taken after disposal of the representation by the State Government. (Para 16)
(v) Constitution of India - Articles 21 & 22 - National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2) r/ws. 14-A - Detention order – Challenged - Advisory Boards sitting was fixed a week before the mandatory last date for submitting the report - Detenu expressing his inability to appear on that date - Nut to be treated as the detenus not desiring to be heard under Section 11(2) of the Act - Opportunity was not afforded to the detenu to appear & produce his witnesses before the Advisory Board - The impugned order is liable to be quashed. (Paras 19 & 20)
JUDGMENT
CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:— The respondents were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, under Section 395 of the Penal Code and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. By its judgment dated November 13, 1972, the High Court of Rajasthan has set aside that judgment and has acquitted the respondents. The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal by special leave against the Judgment of the High Court.
2. The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur had a branch at Bayana in the district of Bharatpur. At about 1.30 p.m.. on March 17, 1971, seven or eight persons looted the Bank. Jugal Kishore Paliwal, the Agent of the Bank, was working in his chamber, while Bhagwan Dass Goyal, Head Cashier, and Suresh Chand Goyal, Assistant Cashier, were in the cash cabin at that time. The dacoits, who were armed with country-made pistols, knives and a handgrenade, ordered these Bank employees to stand up and raise their hands. Three dacoits entered the Agents room. beat him up and opened the safe and the almirahs. They could not find any money therein. They then took the agent to the cash cabin, where they tore open the lid of an iron cash box and took away currency notes of Rs. 15,253/- from it. They snatched a black-coloured confidential box lying on a nearby table threw away the papers which were in that box and put the money in it. They carried away the black box, got into a blue Ambassador car and drove away.
3. The First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged by the Head Cashier. Bhagwan Dass Goyal, within about half an hour i. e. at 2.00 p.m., at Police Station Bayana. The Police Officer there sent wireless messages to the surrounding police stations as also to police outposts. On receipt of the message, the Head Constable in charge of the police station at Weir, posted police personnel to block the car on the road. Soon thereafter, an Ambassador car bearing No. DLJ 7458, in which seven persons were seated, arrived from the direction of Bayana. Driven in panic, the car dashed against an oil barrel in front of a shop and was damaged. The occupants of the car were forced by that circumstance to come out of the car, whereupon they were surrounded by the police and the members of the public. The occupants fired from their pistols and tried to escape under cover of fire but the police and the public gave them a hot chase for over a mile and succeeded in surrounding them once again. The occupants of the car opened fire causing injuries to some members of the public. Ultimately, they were over-powered and caught, Babu Lal, Station House officer of the Bayana Police Station, arrived on the scene and arrested the respondents. It transpired during the investigation that the Ambassador car which the respondents had used was stolen from New Delhi a day before the occurrence. The case of the prosecution is that the respondents before us were the very persons who looted the Bank, escaped in the car and were chased and arrested.
4. The respondents admitted that they were arrested near Weir, but they denied that they had any hand in the loot of the Bank. Each of them furnished a different explanation as regards his presence at Weir at the time of their arrest. They also examined four witnesses to show, principally the reason of their presence at the place of arrest.
5. It would appear from the judgment of the learned single Judge, of the High Court of Rajasthan that three points were argued on behalf of the respondents : (1) There is no evidence regarding the identification of the respondents; (2) There is no trustworthy evidence regarding the recovery of the stolen property from their possession; and (3) There is no evidence to show that they had escaped in the particular Ambassador car and had come out of the car after it met with an accident.
6. On the question of identification of the respondents, the High Court has rejected the evidence of the Agent of the Bank Jugal Kishore Paliwal (PW 4), Head Clerk Radhey Charan Bhargav
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
