Skip to content


Shaligram Khemraj and ors. Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1950MP11; 1950CriLJ660
AppellantShaligram Khemraj and ors.
RespondentState
Cases ReferredGhulam Hussain v. Rex
Excerpt:
.....in its belief that his detention was necessary in the interest of public safety, (d) that the detenu is not bound to complain first to the detaining authority that the information supplied is vague and indefinite before he comes to the court......grounds on 18th march 1919, under section 5 of the aot. it was contended by mr. daji homi that the grounds supplied under section 5 of the act are not sufficient compliance with the mandatory provisions of 8 5. he further contended that the grounds supplied by the district magistrate, district indore to the detenus on 11th march 1049, are vague and the detenus are not in position to make representation without knowing the particulars of the grounds. he contended that the detenus are not in a position to know the grounds on which the order has been made against them and such other particulars as are sufficient to enable the detenus to make representation. i have perused the order of the district magistrate dated nth march 1949 supplying the grounds and x am satisfied that beyond making a.....
Judgment:

Mehta, J.

1. Nine detenus, Shaligram, Narendra, Chunnilal Sukhdeo, Dashrath, Balkrishna, Badrilal, Harcharanlal & Kishanlal were arrested by Sub-Inspector Cube on 7th March 1949, Under Section 8 (1)(a), Madhya Bharat Maintenance of Public Order Act, Samvat 3005 and have been detained in Central Jail. The District Magistrate served the grounds on all the detenus on nth March except in the case of detenu Sukhdeo who was served with the grounds on 18th March 1919, Under Section 5 of the Aot. It was contended by Mr. Daji Homi that the grounds supplied Under Section 5 of the Act are not sufficient compliance with the mandatory provisions of 8 5. He further contended that the grounds supplied by the District Magistrate, District Indore to the detenus on 11th March 1049, are vague and the detenus are not in position to make representation without knowing the particulars of the grounds. He contended that the detenus are not in a position to know the grounds on which the order has been made against them and such other particulars as are sufficient to enable the detenus to make representation. I have perused the order of the District Magistrate dated nth March 1949 supplying the grounds and X am satisfied that beyond making a general and vague statement that the detenus are found to influence the conduct or attitude of the public in a manner likely to be prejudicial to public safety or order and prejudicing the maintenance of public order and safety no specific grounds have been alleged. In Durga Das v. Rex A.I.R. (36) 1949 all. 148 : 50 Cr.L.J. 814 F. B. while discussing the scope and extent of 8, s and the minimum requirements which must be fulfilled before it can be said that there has been compliance with Section 6, it is stated:

(a) That the grounds and particulars must be supplied to the detenu within a reasonable time;

(b) That the grounds and particulars must not be vague, indefinite or incomplete and mast convey sufficient information to the detenu to enable him to make a representation that the detaining authority was wrong In its belief that his detention was necessary in the Interest of public safety,

(d) That the detenu is not bound to complain first to the detaining authority that the information supplied is vague and indefinite before he comes to the Court.

(e) II, in the opinion of the Court, the grounds Supplied are vague, indefinite and insufficient the Court mast hold that further detention is illegal or improper.

2. There is a similar ruling in Murat Patwa v. Province of Bihar A.I.R. (35) 1948 Pat. 13fi : 49 Cr.L.J. 132 P. B.

3. Mr. Daji Homi is quite right in saying that there has not been sufficient compliance with the provisions of 8. 6, Madhya Bharat Maintenance of Publio Order Act. In these cases the grounds are absolutely vague and the detenus are not in position to make any effective representation and following Durga Das v. Bex A.I.R. (86) 1949 ALL. 148 : 50 Or. L. 3. 314 F. B. and Murat Patwa v. Province of Bihar A, I. R. (3fi) 1948 Pat. 135 : 49 Cr.L.J. 132 F. B.K I hold that the detention being not in compliance with Section 6 of the Aot, it is improper. It was urged by the learned Public Prosecutor that .further grounds were supplied to the accused showing the particulars on 3rd April 1949 and the detenus were asked to make & representation by the 4th of April. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that even though the initial grounds supplied were not specific and though the detention upto 3rd April 1949 may not be proper, still the grounds supplied on 3rd April 1949 were in compliance with the provision of 8. 5 of the Act and therefore on the strength of the grounds supplied on 3-4-1949, it cannot be said that the detention is improper. In my opinion, there has been a very great and undue delay in supplying grounds on 3rd April 1949. The detenus were arrested on 7th March 1949 and the grounds were supplied so late as 3rd April 1949, just 3 days before they were due to be released. This is an unwarranted delay, and would not show the bona fides of the detaining authority with regard to the detention of the detenus. Moreover, the grounds that were supplied on 11th March 1949 are based on facts which are quite different and at variance with the grounds stated in the grounds of 3rd April 1949. It has been held in Ghulam Hussain v. Rex, A.I. R (36)1949 Oudh 20 : 60 Cr. L J. 260 that the grounds of detention and additional particulars required to be furnished Under Section 5 must not be so furnished in instalments but at one time soon after the order Under Section 8 (1) has been made. These must not be genera], vague or indefinite so as to deprive the detenus of the opportunity of making a representation and clearing the character of such imputation as are made against him. They must be clear and explicit on the face of it, otherwise the safeguard provided Under Section 8, for the benefit of the detenu would be rendered nugatory. The detaining authorities cannot go on shifting and changing the grounds Under Section 5 as it suits their convenience. That would show mala fide on their part.

4. For these reasons, particularly because of an inordinate delay in supplying grounds Under Section 5i I hold that further detention of the detenues is improper and the detenus are, therefore, ordered to be released forthwith.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //