1970 Supreme(SC) 456

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Hidayatullah, CJI., A.N.Ray : C.A.Vaidialingam : G.K.Mitter : J.M.Shelat, JJ.
R.K.Garg: Rajendra Kumar Garg: Raj Kumar Vohra
Versus
Superintendent, District Jail, Saharanpur: District Magistrate, Saharanpur: Superintendent, District Jail, Saharanpur
Case No. : 372 of 1970
Date of Decision : 10/28/70

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 188 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 107, 177, 144, 151, 561 – Arrest and Detention Questioned – Issue Pertaining to Excess of ceiling fixed – By these petitions questioned arrest and detention under S. 107/117 of Code of Criminal Procedure and for his trial for offences under Section 188, etc. of Indian Penal Code. – Petitioner contended inter alia that provisions of Section 144 and Ch. VIII of Code of Criminal Procedure were violative of Constitution and were, therefore void after 26/01/1950. – Other petitioners also had urged same grounds – Contentions of Rajendra Kumar Garg regarding validity of order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, apart from constitutional validity of section itself which Court have already upheld. – It may be mentioned that petitioner moved another petition under Section 561-A of Code of Criminal Procedure in High court of Allahabad relating to his arrest for an offence under section 188 of Indian Penal Code and matter is pending there – Contention is that it is too wide and goes beyond report of police which itself is vague and gives no real information, that it imposes a blanket ban on all Districts under directions of government of State and that remand for trial of an offence under Section 188 Indian Penal Code on top of a remand under S. 107/117 is invalid. – Question of a second remand was also argued other way round that is, after a remand for trial of offence there could be no remand under S. 107/117(3). – High court was moved under Section 561(a) and has stayed proceedings under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code – Held, It hardly lies in the mouths of those persons who confess to being members of parties out to seize illegally and without any excuse in law surplus lands, to say that others were likely to be inconvenienced – Court, therefore, reject contention that application of order being general, there was an excess in exercise of jurisdiction. – It is significant that not one person, who was not connected with movement, he came forward to impeach order. – Court is also satisfied that District Magistrate had ample material before him to proceed to promulgate the order. – Happenings, of next few days, quite clearly established the correctness of his view. – Court cannot probe too deeply into his reasons when conduct of petitioners and members of their parties clearly bears out apprehension of District Magistrate to be real. – Evidence which has been come later from petitioners themselves helps us in our appraisal of assertion of Sub-Divisional Magistrate that District Magistrate had definite information. – Reports made by persons against whose lands action was projected is quite clear and cogent and court cannot describe that information as either vague or not containing sufficient material for action. – Further directions of State government, if any, in that behalf cannot be characterised as an exercise of discretion not by Magistrate but by State government. – It is obvious that District Magistrates would solicit from government advice as to line to adopt in such a general upheaval and advice, if any, to use Section 144 of Code, when the situation demanded, would be perfectly in order. – Preamble gives gist of information, truth of which is certified by overt acts of petitioners themselves. – Court is satisfied that facts mentioned in preamble existed. – Order is in 13 clauses. – Court have read through these clauses. – In circumstances that existed these precautionary measures were not only needed but also were essential in interest of public order. – Objection was taken to Clause 6 which prohibited use of loudspeakers. – But that was capable of relaxation in a suitable case. – Remaining clauses in court’s opinion carry out the purpose with minimum of interruption of life of the community. – There are reasonable exclusions and operation of order is thus limited to those whose actions were apprehended to cause mischief section is intended to prevent. – Petitions Dismissed