Skip to content


Prakash Vs. State of Madhya Bharat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1953CriLJ982
AppellantPrakash
RespondentState of Madhya Bharat
Cases ReferredKeshav Talpade v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- - 334 (fb)(a). it was held that if a reason is given for the detention of a person which is not within the scope and ambit of the act conferring power upon the government to detain then the whole order is vitiated notwithstanding the fact that the other reasons given are good because something may have operated upon the mind of the detaining authority which is foreign and extraneous for the purpose of the act. on the whole i am satisfied that some of the grounds supplied to the detenu for his detention in this case are outside the scope and ambit of the preventive detention act and some grounds are vague and indefinite generalisations......the activities of the detenu have all along been subversive and because of such prejudicial and illegal activities, the peace of indore city is in danger and to prevent the detenu from indulging in any of the activities prejudicial to the public tranquility it is necessary to detain him under the preventive detention act. now it will appear from the grounds quoted above that no particulars have been given against the petitioner except the bare statement that he is a, member of the communist party which is as illegal body. there is absolutely no reference to the nature of activities indulged in by the petitioner apart from the membership of the communist party. there is no specification as to what activities have been undertaken by the detenu in pursuance of his being a member of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mehta, J.

1. This is an application by one Prakash Sarkar under Section 491, Criminal P.C. Prakash was arrested by Indore Police and detained for two months from 16.2.51 under the orders of the District Magistrate District Indore. He has been detained under Section 3(1)(a), Sub-clause (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act No. IV of 1950. On 26.2.1951 the grounds were supplied to the detenue as required by Section 7 of the said Act. The detenu contended that he is a peaceful citizen and that none of his activities was such as to endanger public tranquility of the City of Indore. The allegations contained in the grounds are false, vague and extraneous for the purposes of the Act. The grounds did not satisfy the requirements of Section 7, Preventive Detention Act, and hence the applicant's detention is illegal.

2. It will be necessary to examine minutely the grounds under Section 7, Preventive Detention Act, under which the detenu is kept in detention. In my opinion, the ground No. 5 that the detenu eloped with a girl named Kamala daughter of Chunnilal Koshi, in 1950 and created sensation is absolutely outside the scope of the Preventive Detention Act. The mere fact that the detenu took away Kamala and then married her as stated by the detenu in his affidavit would not endanger public tranquility of the City of Indore.

So also ground No. 9 that on 6.2.1951 the detenu with Lagu and others and the Socialist Flag in hand staged a demonstration against 25 per cent, cut in ration with a view to create disaffection amongst the labourers, is not at all a ground under Section 7 which could induce the authority to detain a person. In - Rajdhar Kalu Patil In re AIR 1948 Bom. 334 (FB)(A). it was held that if a reason is given for the detention of a person which is not within the scope and ambit of the Act conferring power upon the Government to detain then the whole order is vitiated notwithstanding the fact that the other reasons given are good because something may have operated upon the mind of the detaining authority which is foreign and extraneous for the purpose of the Act. This ruling is based on the ruling of the Federal Court reported in - Keshav Talpade v. Emperor AIR 1943 FC 1 (B), wherein Sir Morris Gawyer observed

if a detaining authority gives four reasons for detaining a man without distinguishing them and any of the 2 or 3 reasons are held to be bad, it can never be certain to what extent the bad reasons operated on the mind of the authority and whether the detention order would have been made at all if only 1 or 2 good reasons had been before him.

3. Ground No. 2 states that the detenu is a member of the Communist Party which is an illegal body. It further states that the activities of the detenu have all along been subversive and because of such prejudicial and illegal activities, the peace of Indore City is in danger and to prevent the detenu from indulging in any of the activities prejudicial to the public tranquility it is necessary to detain him under the Preventive Detention Act. Now it will appear from the grounds quoted above that no particulars have been given against the petitioner except the bare statement that he is a, member of the Communist Party which is as illegal body. There is absolutely no reference to the nature of activities indulged in by the petitioner apart from the membership of the Communist Party. There is no specification as to what activities have been undertaken by the detenu in pursuance of his being a member of the Communist Party. No particulars have been given of the nature of the activities above indicated. Mere vague and general statement to the effect that the activities are prejudicial and illegal is not enough. The nature of the activities must be indicated in the grounds furnished and some particulars should be given. There is nothing to show that the detenu indulged in activities which were subversive of the public safety and the maintenance of public order after the Communist Party was declared illegal.

4. In my opinion, the crucial point is that the nature of the activities for which the person has been detained must be specified in the grounds under Section 7 to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. The Provincial Government or the District Magistrate must indicate the nature of the activities and give particulars thereof. In the absence of any indication of the nature of the activities and particulars thereof, the grounds must be held to be no grounds at all. In my opinion, to-carry on a propaganda for the removal of 25 per cent, cut in the ration would not amount to such prejudicial or subversive activity as would endanger public tranquility of the City of Indore. There is no objection to criticise or even to demonstrate against the food policy of the Government and no man can be detained merely because he carries on a propaganda against 25 per cent, cut in the ration. On the whole I am satisfied that some of the grounds supplied to the detenu for his detention in this case are outside the scope and ambit of the Preventive Detention Act and some grounds are vague and indefinite generalisations.

5. I, therefore, direct that the detenu be released forthwith and set at liberty.


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