IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Mere service of detention order in jail per se is not bad.
2. The fact that a man was found not guilty in a criminal trial would not be determinative of the factor that order of detention could not be passed against him on the very same charges.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 22, 32 and 136 - National Security Act, 1980 -Section 3(2)-Order of detention 16.12.85 passed under - Challenged, as invalid alleging that the grounds of detention on which the detenu was detained related to as far back as 1979 - Whether the detention order can be based on past conduct of the detenu? (Yes, the past conduct or antecedent history on which the authority purported to act should ordinarily be proximate in point of time and have a rational connection with the conclusion that the detention of the person was necessary.)
       (Paras 6 and 23).
       Held, having regard to the purpose of the Act, the detaining authority must take into consideration rational, proximate, reasonable past and present and that should be the basis for the horoscope for the future so as to determine whether the person proposed to be detained comes within the mischief of the Act. If the person is in detention or is under trial and his conviction is unlikely but his conduct comes within the mischief of the Act then the authority is entitled to take a rational view of the matter. The grounds must be there. The decision must be bona fide. (Para 38)
       (b) Constitution of India - Articles 22, 32 and l36 - National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2) - Detention order passed under-The detenu is alleged to have been continuously engaging himself in committing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community i.e., removing of railway property-Criminal cases were pending against detenu in respect of alleged grounds-Detenu was on bail-Detention order challenged - Held, judicial trial has a jurisdiction distioct from that of detention under the Act. (Paras 28, 41)
       Further held, law does not permit double detention and referring to Rameshwar Shaw's case it was reiterated that when a person was in jail custody and the criminal proceedings were pending against him, the appropriate authority might in a given case take the view that criminal proceedings might end very won and might terminate in his acquittal. In such a case, it would be open to the appropriate authority to make an order of detention, if the requisites conditions of the Rule or the section were satisfied, and serve it on the person concerned even after he was acquitted in the said criminal proceedings. (Para 31)
       (c) Constitution of India - Article 22, -Mere service of detention order in jail per-se is not bad. (Para 35)
       Held, there was no legal bar in serving an order of detention on a person who was in jail custody if he was likely to be released soon thereafter and there was relevant material on which the detaining authority was satisfied that if free, the person concerned was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order.
       (Para 32)
       (d) Constitution of India-Article 22 The fact that a man is not in jail per-se would not be determinative of the factor that order of preventive detention could Dot be paled, against him. (Para 41)
       (e) Constitution of India - Article 22 - The fact that a man was found not guilty in a criminal trial would not be determinative of the factor that order of preventive detention could not be passed against him. (Para 41)
       Held, the jurisprudence dealing with prohibitory detention or preventive detention is well-settled and it can no longer be a valid contention that because the accused had been discharged in a criminal case, the ground of charge could not be relied upon by the appropriate authority passed an order of preventive detention. The former related to the punitive branch of criminal law and relied on the past commissions, the latter to the punitive branch of social defence and protected the community from future injury. It is not possible to urge that simply because a man has been discharged in a criminal case, these grounds could not be grounds for preventive detention. But there must be live-link between the grounds of criminal activities alleged to the detaining authority and the purpose of detention. (Para 33)
       (f) Constitution of India - Article 22National Security Act, 1980 - Section 3(2) -Where a person was enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinising the validity of an order of preventive detention which was treated on the very same charge which Was to be tried by the criminal court. (Para 36)
       (g) National Security Act, 1980-Section 3(2)-Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980-Section 3(1)-The expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community" does not include "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community" as defined in the Explanation to subsection (l) of section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing Act. (Para 17)
       Result-
       Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - Writ Petition No. 290 of 1986 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1265 of 1986 are connected and related to an order of detention of one Rampal Sahu dated 16th December, 1985 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the said 'Act). These are dealt with by this judgment.

2. The said Rampal Sahu (hereinafter called 'the detenu') was detained by the aforesaid order, which was served on him on 17th December, 1985 with the grounds of detention. According to the writ petition as well as the special leave petition the grounds of detention served on the detenu did not disclose any violation of the Essential Commodities Act or Essential Services Maintenance Act. In the premises it is the contention of the petitioner that the detention was illegal and unconstitutional. The State of Maharashtra approved the detention on 24th December, 1985.

3. The detention order as mentioned hereinbefore was under section 3(2) of the said Act. The detenu was arrested on 17th December, 1985 and the grounds of detention were served on the same day. The order alleged, inter alia, that since the year 1979, the detenu had been continuously engaging himself in committing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community i.e., removing of permanent way material stocked along rail lines for maintenance of rail tracks, removing parts of Carriages, Wagons and Signal Telecommunication materials utilised for repair of Railway Wagons and maintenance of signals. It was further alleged that the said detenu used to arrange to remove railway property with the help of his 'gang' and stock the same in his godown, himself remaining behind the scene. It was alleged that in a number of cases railway properties were loaded and carried away in truck No. MHG 6302, which was owned by the detenu. It was stated that he was indulging in removing railway material which was stacked along the rail tracks for the maintenance of the tracks, thus the work or maintenance of the tracks was hampered and quick movement of the wagons loaded with essential commodities such as food-grains, arms, ammunition required by the general public and the armed forces could not be made. Such acts were prejudicial, according to the order of detention, to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

4. The grounds further indicated six different cases. The case numbers were:

1. P.S. Deori Crime No. 69/83 under sections 379, 34 I.P.C. decided by the J.M.F.C. Sakoli vide C.C. No. 50/84.

2. R.P.F. Post Ajni Crime No. 20/84 under section 3 R.P. (V.P.) Act, 1966. An appeal under section 378 of the code of Criminal Procedure is being filed in the High Court against the order of acquittal dated 24.5.85 passed by the J.M F.C., Railway Court, Nagpur, vide C.C. No. 362/84.

3. R.P.F. Post Ajni Crime No. 43/84 under section 3 R.P. (V.P.) Act, 1966 pending trial before the J.M.F.C (Rly.), Nagpur, vide C.C. No. 153/85.

4. P.S. Kamptee Crime No. 195/84 under sections 379, 411, 34 I.P.C. pending trial before the J.M.F.C., VIII Court, Nagpur, vide C.C. No. 200/84.

5. P.S. Kamptee Crime No. 53/85 under sections 379, 34 I.P.C. under investigation.

6. R.P.F. Post Ajni Crime No. 41/85 under section 3 R.P. (V.P.) Act pending trial before the J M.F.C. (Rly.) Court, Nagpur, vide C.C. No. 212/ 85.

The incident in the first case was alleged to have taken place on 26th December, 1983. It was alleged that a truck bearing Registration No. MHG 6302 was standing near the iron bridge on the National Highway and some thieves were trying to cut the steel girders meant for constructing road bridge for removing the same. Other particulars were named therein and the names of two persons were also mentioned. There was some stealing. The stolen property including steel girders and the truck mentioned above were seized. It appears that the truck was owned by the detenu. The detenu was arrested on 26th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTS1. Mere service of detention order in jail per se is not bad.2. The fact that a man was found not guilty in a criminal trial would not be determinative of the factor that order of detention could not be passed against him on the very same charges.

Cases Referred (15)

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Mere service of detention order in jail per se is not bad.
2. The fact that a man was found not guilty in a criminal trial would not be determinative of the factor that order of detention could not be passed against him on the very same charges.