Back
1982 Supreme(Bom) 235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C.S. Dharmadhikari V.V. Joshi, JJ.
Ashok Shridhar Joshi.... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra another.... Respondents.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 375 of 1982 (Under Article 226 227 of the Constitution of India), decided on 3-9-1982.
Advocates appeared :
V.G. Pradhan, for petitioner.
N.D. Hombalkar, P.P., for State.
Important Points
Subject
Constitutional Law - PERSONAL LIBERTY
Act Referred
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT : S.3(2)
Headnote
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 - DETENTION - GROUNDS - STALENESS - RELEVANCE - DISCLOSURE - ARTICLE 22(5) AND 22(6) OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERPRETATION - PUBLIC INTEREST - UNDERTAKING BY DETENU.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, on the grounds of his involvement in various criminal activities, including assault and murder. The petitioner challenged the detention order, arguing that some of the grounds were stale and irrelevant, and that the Detaining Authority had not disclosed all the grounds on which the order was based.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that one of the grounds for detention, relating to an incident that occurred three years prior to the detention order, was stale and irrelevant. The court also held that the Detaining Authority had failed to disclose all the grounds on which the order was based, including the petitioner's past criminal activity and externment proceedings against him. The court found that this non-disclosure violated the petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the inclusion of a stale and irrelevant ground in the grounds of detention vitiates the detention order? 2. Whether the non-disclosure of all the grounds on which a detention order is based violates the petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the inclusion of a stale and irrelevant ground in the grounds of detention vitiates the detention order because it is impossible to know how the irrelevant or extraneous grounds have affected the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. 2. Yes, the non-disclosure of all the grounds on which a detention order is based violates the petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution because it prevents the petitioner from making an effective representation against the detention order.
Final Decision: The court quashed the detention order and directed the petitioner to be released forthwith.
2. The petitioner is a resident of Ashok Nagar, Kanjur village, Bhandup (East), Bombay. The grounds of detention are five in number :---
(i) The first ground relates to an incident dated 27th May, 1979 in which the petitioner along with his associates is stated to have assaulted one Krishnakant Damodar Padave, a resident of Ashoknagar, Kanjur village, Bhandup, with an iron rod. A criminal case under section 324-114 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and his associates. This criminal case was compounded on 20th July, 1981 and the petitioner was consequently acquitted.
(ii) The second ground relates to an incident of 30th June, 1979 which took place in Kanjur village, Bhandup in a quarrel between one Vilas Tatoba Ghag and the petitioner's associate one Charlie. The petitioner is alleged to have given a knife blow to Vilas Tatoba Ghag and an offence C.R. No. 303 of 1979 was registered against the petitioner and his associates under sections 324-427-114 I.P.C. and the case is still sub judice.
(iii) On 1st July, 1979 i.e. the next date after the incident referred to in ground No. (ii), the petitioner and his associates are stated to have abused and threatened Vilas Tatoba Ghag on account of his complaint to police the earlier day, and thereafter to have again given blows with a Rampuri knife to Vilas Tatoba Ghag. In respect of this incident a C.R. No. 307 of 1979 was registered against the petitioner and his associates under sections 143-144-146-148-149 and 326 I.P.C. and the said case is still sub judice.
(iv) On 8th January, 1982 the petitioner and his associates are stated to have assaulted one Ramesh Poojari in Kanjur village, Bhandup, by giving him blows with a sword. This led to registration of C.R. No. 10 of 1982 under sections 324-114 I.P.C. against the petitioner and his associates. This case is stated to be under investigation.
(v) The last incident is dated 6th April, 1982 when the petitioner and his associates are alleged to have committed the murder of one Umaji Babaji Koyande in Nehru Nagar, Kanjur village by assaulting him with swords and hockey sticks. The incident led to the registration of C.R. No. 141 of 1982 under which the petitioner was arrested on 6th April, 1982 and was subsequently directed to be released on bail on 1st July, 1982.
3. Shri Pradhan for the petitioner has contended that the impugned detention order does not indicate awareness on the part of the Detaining Authority of the fact that the petitioner was on the date of the passing of the detention order was already in custody nor does the detention order or the grounds of detention disclose any compelling reasons for which the Detaining Authority considered it necessary to pass the preventive-detention order against the petitioner in spite of the fact that he was already in custody of the police. In this respect Shri Pradhan pointed out that the grounds of detention con
