The main legal point established in the judgment is the Court's interpretation of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act 6 of 1930 and Act 4 of 1932, affirming the authority of the Local Government to form an opinion on the detention of individuals under the Act and the limitation of the Court's jurisdiction under Section 491, Criminal P. C.

JUDGMENT

Remfry, J. - This is a petition on behalf of Kali Charan Ghosh praying for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus or for a mandamus. It appears from the petition that Kali Charan Ghosh was arrested and detained in the Presidency Jail on or about 10th February or 16th February 1932. He claims to be a French subject and it is said that he was arrested near Serampur and that his brother, the present petitioner, was informed on 16th February that Kali Charan had been arrested under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act 6 of 1930, Bengal. The petitioner states that in spite of inquiries he had been unable to ascertain the grounds for this arrest, and has not been able to secure a copy of the warrant under which the detenu is detained, and that the detenu is a good and useful French subject and has never been convicted in a Court of law. A rule was issued on 28th April on the Superintendent of the Presidency Jail, to show cause why the body of the detenu should not be produced in this Court on ground No. 1 of the petition. That ground alleges that the arrest and detention of the said Kali Charan Ghosh

are illegal and neither the arrest nor the detention are warranted by the British, Indian or French or International laws or under the constitutional and criminal laws of the British Dominions and Dependencies.

2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party, sworn by a Sub-Inspector of Police, which sets out that, being duly authorized u/s 4, Sub-section 1, Act 6 of 1930 he arrested the detenu on 10th February at Howrah station, and reported the fact to the Local Government, and committed him to the Presidency Jail, in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

3. The affidavit sets out an order of the Local Government of 23rd February 1932 directing that the detenu be detained until the 9th March, and an order of the Local Government of the 11th March for his detention under Sub-section 1, Section 2,Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1930, which recites that in the opinion of the Government of Bengal there are reasonable grounds for believing that Babu Kali Charan Ghosh is a person in respect of whom an order may lawfully be made under that section. An offer was made to produce the original orders if they were required. On behalf of the petitioner no request was made for the production of the original documents. It was not disputed that the detenu was a French subject. The matter was argued at length, and with commendable restraint and lucidity by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the Crown. It was not disputed that this Court had jurisdiction u/s 491, Criminal P. C., and it was therefore unnecessary to consider any other law under which this Court could issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or a mandamus.

4. For the petitioner it was argued that the Government had no power to arrest or detain the detenu as an act of State. But as the Crown only claimed to have acted under the powers conferred by the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act 6 of 1930 as amended by Act 4 of 1932 it is unnecessary to consider this argument. In this case the Local Government passed its order, on 11th March 1932, and Act 4 of 1932 came into force on 23rd March 1932 and accordingly this case must be decided under Act 6 of 1930 as it was before the amending Act 4 of 1932 was passed, for Section 6, Act 4 of 1932 provides that any act done under the provisions of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1931, shall be deemed to have been done under the provisions of Act 6 of 1930 as amended by Act 4 of 1932 as if this Act, i. e., Act 4 of 1932, had commenced on 29th October 1931, but the order in this case was passed u/s 2, Act 6 of 1930, and was not passed under the Ordinance. In the other rule, which was heard by consent at the same time, the only points of difference are, that the order of the Local Government was made on 14th May 1932 and the Act applicable was Act 6 of 1930 as amended by Act 4 of