Skip to content


Moni Lal Roy Choudhury Vs. State of West Bengal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 14 of 1975
Judge
Reported inAIR1975SC2056; 1975CriLJ1776; (1976)1SCC191
AppellantMoni Lal Roy Choudhury
RespondentState of West Bengal
Excerpt:
- .....were communicated. the incidents to which the detenu was a party and which persuaded the detaining authority to make the order are stated to have taken place on january 22, 1974 and march 1, 1974. obviously, the incidents are such as, if true, would have been sufficient for the subjective satisfaction of the district magistrate concerned. but the plea put forward is that the detenu was a government servant and attending office on the alleged dates. para. 7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the state explains how, notwithstanding the entry of attendance in the office register, the detenu was involved in criminal incidents and eye-witnesses evidence was available for the detaining authority in this behalf. it is not for us to investigate the alibi of the detenu. the.....
Judgment:

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. Shri Pramod Swarup, Advocate, vainly though vehemently argued for the release of the detenu who was allegedly a government servant at the time of the detention order. The order was passed on May 4, 1974 and the grounds of detention in compliance with the statutory requirement were communicated. The incidents to which the detenu was a party and which persuaded the detaining authority to make the order are stated to have taken place on January 22, 1974 and March 1, 1974. Obviously, the incidents are such as, if true, would have been sufficient for the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate concerned. But the plea put forward is that the detenu was a government servant and attending office on the alleged dates. Para. 7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State explains how, notwithstanding the entry of attendance in the office register, the detenu was involved in criminal incidents and eye-witnesses evidence was available for the detaining authority in this behalf. It is not for us to investigate the alibi of the detenu. The jurisprudence of preventive detention ordinarily keeps this area out of bounds and out of the purview of this Court.

2. No other ground meriting consideration has been urged. We see no reason to disturb the order of detention. The Rule is vacated and the petition dismissed.


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