Skip to content


G.K. Ohab Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 407 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1975SC1001; 1975CriLJ811; (1975)3SCC561; 1975(7)LC98(SC)
ActsMaintenance and Internal Security Act, 1971
AppellantG.K. Ohab
RespondentState of West Bengal and ors.
Advocates: V. Mayakrishnan, Adv.,;A.C
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 168: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly, jj] claim for compensation in claim petition age of deceased was stated to be 32 years and that he was getting rs.7,427/- as monthly salary - adopting multiplier of 17 entitlement of claim fixed at rs.10,61,000/- with 9% interest from date of filing of claim petition appeal - held, keeping in view parameters indicated in u.p. state road transport corporation & ors. v trilok chandra & ors. 1996(4) scc 362; 1994 air scw 1356, it would be appropriate to fix multiplier at 13 and rate of interest at 6% p.a. claims tribunal was directed to work out entitlements on said basis. .....of internal security act, 1971, on 18-3-1974 by the district magistrate, murshidabad. 2. the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu are :that on 7-12-1972 at about 18 hours you carried weapons including unlicenced firer-arms, held secretmeeting with your associate kala majhi of bangla desh and many others in the bouse of your associate azimuddin biswass at bartanabad,p.s dokal and subsequently assembled in a jungle at jitpore near k???libari, participated in a dacoity in the house of basi charu ullah mandal at radhakhatapore, p.s domkal at 23 00 hrs assaulted inmates, fired several rounds from an unlicenced gun towards the approaching villagers and thereby disturbed the public order. that on 6-1-1973 morning you carried bombs and unlicenced fire arms at the village.....
Judgment:

K.K. Mathew, J.

1. The petitioner challenges the validity of an order of detention passed under Sub-section (1) read with sub Section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, on 18-3-1974 by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad.

2. The grounds of detention communicated to the detenu are :

That on 7-12-1972 at about 18 hours you carried weapons including unlicenced firer-arms, held secretmeeting with your associate Kala Majhi of Bangla Desh and many others in the bouse of your associate Azimuddin Biswass at Bartanabad,P.S Dokal and subsequently assembled in a jungle at Jitpore near K???libari, participated in a dacoity in the house of Basi Charu Ullah Mandal at Radhakhatapore, P.S Domkal at 23 00 hrs assaulted inmates, fired several rounds from an unlicenced gun towards the approaching villagers and thereby disturbed the public order. That on 6-1-1973 morning you carried bombs and unlicenced fire arms at the village Bartanabad P.S. Domkal, inviting Kala Majhi and many unknown others from Bangla Desh, holding secret meeting at the house of your associate at the village, participating in a dacoity at 18.45 hrs. on the same day in the house of S.K. Golaz Murthuza at Palsa P.S. Nabagram assaulted inmates, fired several rounds towards the approaching villagers from an unlicenced gun and killing one of them, looted, away cash, ornaments, etc. from the house and escaped to Bangladesh via Bartanabad P S. Domkal on the following morning and thereby disturbed the public order.

3. The only contention raised by counsel for the petitioner as regards the validity of the detention order was that the first ground was vague inas much as it did not specify the duration of the secret meeting which the petitioner had with his associate Kala Majhi of Bangla Desh and many others in the house of his associate Azirnuddin Biswass at Bartanabad in the ground, and that although it is stated in the ground that it was at about 18 00 hrs. on 7-12-1972 that the petitioner carried weapons including unlicenced fire-arms and his participation in the dacoity in the house of Basi Charu Ullah Mandal at Radha-khatapore was at 23.00 hrs. There was no mention in the ground that it was on the same day.

4. We do not think that there is any substance in the contention. The ground is reasonably specific and there can be no doubt that '23 hrs.' mentioned in the ground must be on the same day. Any reasonable person reading the ground would have no difficulty in understanding its content and could make an effective representation on the basis of the details given therein.

5. No other ground was urged by counsel nor do we see any infirmity in the order of detention.

6. We dismiss the petition.


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