SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(All) 391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ghulam Hasan and Kidwai, JJ.
BABOO RAM AGARWAL - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Appln. 325 Of 1950
Decided On : 12/08/1950

Advocates Appeared:
I.A.ABBASI, R.B.Bisaria

Headnote:

PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT, 1950 - SECTION 3 - DETENTION ORDER - SATISFACTION OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - GROUNDS OF DETENTION - SUFFICIENCY - MALA FIDES - BURDEN OF PROOF.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a proprietor of an iron store, was arrested and detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, on the grounds that he was a habitual black-marketeer in controlled iron goods, that he had obtained a permit for two tons of iron rods by fraudulent means, and that he was selling iron goods above the controlled price. The petitioner challenged the legality of his detention, alleging that the order was mala fide and that there was not sufficient material before the District Magistrate to be satisfied that the petitioner was going to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the order of detention was perfectly legal and justified. It held that the satisfaction contemplated in section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act is the satisfaction of the District Magistrate and it is not open to the Court to examine minutely into the reasonableness or otherwise of the order. The Court also held that the grounds of detention were sufficient to justify the order and that there was no evidence of mala fides on the part of the District Magistrate.

Issues: 1. Whether the order of detention was mala fide? 2. Whether there was sufficient material before the District Magistrate to be satisfied that the petitioner was going to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proving that the order was mala fide lies upon the detenu. 2. The satisfaction contemplated in section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act is the satisfaction of the District Magistrate and it is not open to the Court to examine minutely into the reasonableness or otherwise of the order. 3. The grounds of detention must be sufficient to justify the order and there must be no evidence of mala fides on the part of the District Magistrate.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition.

GHULAM HASAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by one Babu Ram Agarwal under Section 491, Criminal P. C. challenging the illegality of his arrest and detention and praying that he may be released.

( 2 ) THE material facts antecedent to the arrest of Babu Ram Agarwal will appear from the affidavit of Mr. C. P. Srivastava, City Magistrate, Lucknow. Babu Bam Agarwal is the proprietor of Jai Hind Iron Stores, La Touche Road, Lucknow, which was established about four years ago. He was previously employed with the Agarwal Metal Stores, La Touche Road, on a fixed salary. It appears that the District Magistrate received information that Babu Bam Agarwal was a habitual black-marketeer and used to sell iron goods, for which he had no licence, above the controlled rates. He disputed Mr. C. P. Srivastava to make secret enquiries about his dealings. Mr. Srivastava arranged a fake deal and asked Mr. Ved Prakash, Deputy Collector, to pose as a purchaser. He gave him RS. 120 in currency notes duly initialled by him on 19-9-1950; Mr. Ved prakash, accompanied by the informer, went to the shop of Babu Bam, while he Mr. Srivastava stayed at some distance. When the deal was completed and rods were loaded on the thela, Mr. Srivastava suddenly appeared on the scene and interrogated Babu Bam as to where the rods were being sent. The latter said that they were being Bent to Motinagar. A couple of seconds later, babu Ram took out some notes from his shirt pocket and threw them towards his servant Natthu singh, who took them up. Mr. Srivastava caught hold of Natthu Singhs hand and took possession of the notes. These notes were the same notes which he had initialled and which Mr. Ved Prakash had passed to Babu Ram as the purchase price of the rods Mr. Ved Prakash told Mr. Srivastava that he had paid Rs. 120 towards the part payment of the price at the rate of RS. 28 per maund and had promised to pay the balance of Rs. 7-4-0 later. Mr. Srivastava on being pointed out by Mr Ved Prakash recovered from Babu Rams table a piece of paper on which he had calculated the price of the rods. This confirmed the statement of Mr. Ved Prakash that the rate charged was double the controlled rate. Mr. Srivastava then made a vigorous search of the shop and found a considerable quantity of iron rods kept in a kotbri at the back of the shop. He prepared a recovery list and got it signed by Babu Ram. His signature appears in English. He asked Babu Ram to show him the stock book but he told him that he had none. He also said that he had no licence to stock or to sell iron goods. Babu Ram made a flat denial of having sold any rods to Mr. Ved Prakash and said that he must have got them from somewhere else Mr. Srivastava then searched the godown of Babu Ram which was about 50 yards away from his shop. The key of this godown was handed to Mr. Srivastava after some reluctance. The godown when opened was found to contain a large quantity of iron goods stocked therein. Recovery lists of these goods were prepared and were signed by Babu Ram in English. Mr Srivastava also came to know from Mr. Ved Prakash that Babu Ram had sent a thela load of rods to Narhai soon after his arrival with instructions to thelawala that they should wait outside the Arya Samaj building for his employee Babu Lal. Both he and Mr. Ved Prakash proceeded to the spot and found the thelawalas waiting. Mr. Srivastava took down the statement of Sheo Charan thelawala who admitted that in addition to these goods he had been employed by Babu Ram to send similar goods to Sadar and Chauk. He book him to Sadar where it was found that Balbir Singh, M. E. 8. Contractor had purchased one maund of rods for his house which was under construction. Mr. Srivastava also recorded the statement of Khuda Bakhsh thelawala who had loaded the rods bought by Mr. ved Prakash. After completing these formalities he submitted his report to the district Magistrate on September 20. That however does not conclude the matter. Mr. Srivastava, appa


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top