1950 Supreme(Cal) 40
SEN, K.C.CHUNDER, LAHIRI
Sunil Kumar Bose – Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal – Respondent
Advocates:
A.K. Basu, K.K. Basu, Bejoy Bhose, Krishnaprasad Basu (in 51 of 50); A.K. Basu, K.K. Basu, Bejoy Bhose (in 61 of 50); Atul Chandra Gupta, Arun Kumar Dutt, Hemanta Krishna Mitra (in 81 of 95 of 50); Bejoy Bhose (in 96 of 50); S.C. Talukdar, Sadhan Gupta, Arun Prakash Chatterjee (in 178 and 179 of 49); Bejoy Bhose, Krishna Prasad Basu (in 24 and 48 of 50); Sadhan Gupta, Krishna Prasad Basu, Arun Prakash Chatterjee (in 10 of 50); Sadhan Gupta, Krishna Prasad Basut Arun Prakash Chatterjee (in 106 of 108 of 50); Sadhan Gupta and Krishna Prasad Basu (in 148 of 50); S.S. Mukherjee and Arun Kumar Dutt (in 125 of 50) and Arun Prakash Chatterjee (in 15, 23 and 119 of 50) - for Petitioners.Sir S.M. Bose, Advocate-General, M.N. Ghose, S. Chowdhury and N.K. Sen, Deputy Legal Remembrancer - for the State.
ORDER :- These are 381 Rules issued in respect of 381 persons 370 of whom are under detection by orders passed under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1930, as amended by the Criminal Law Amendment (Amending Ordinance, 1949) and two of whom, namely, Puma Chandra Ghose and Dulal Bose, are under detention by orders passed under the West Bengal Security Ordinance, 1949. Of the persons who are subject to these rules, eight have been discharged and one has escaped from custody. So far as these persons are concerned, the rules have become infructuous and no further orders on these rules are necessary.
2. Most of these rules were issued before the Constitution of India came into force and they were under S. 491, Criminal P.C. Thereafter the Constitution Act came into force by which the High Courts were given powers to issue, inter alia, writs in the nature of habeas corpus by Art. 226(1) and all the rules issued by this
Court were treated in the alternative as being rules nisi for the issue of writs of habeas corpus. The learned Advocate-General accepted this alternative and waived any claim to fresh notice.
3. We shall deal first with the question of the legality of the detention of th
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
