Skip to content


Ramesh Roy Alias Ramsha Vs. State of West Bengal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 49 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1972SC1678; 1972CriLJ1024; (1972)3SCC829; 1973(5)LC88(SC)
ActsWest Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 - Sections 3(3)
AppellantRamesh Roy Alias Ramsha
RespondentState of West Bengal
Appellant Advocate C.K. Daphtary, Sr. Adv. Chandrakant Ratnaparkhi and; A.G. Ratnaparkhi, Advs
Respondent Advocate P.K. Chakravarti and ; G.S. Chatterjee, Advs. for Sukumar Basu and Co.
Cases ReferredKeshab Roy v. State of W.B.
Excerpt:
.....not produced before magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest - further contended that use of word 'panic' in detention order implied that the act complained off was less violent and consequently has no effect of disturbance of public order - clause 3 of article 22 specifically exempts a detention under any law relating to preventive detention from provisions of article 22 (2) - the word 'panic' is a state of mind or reaction to fearsome or gruesome events or even creating unreasoning or hysterical fear often spreading quickly - what creates panic can also create terror depending upon the acts with which a person is confronted - just because the word panic was used it does not indicate that act complained of was not prejudicial to maintenance of public order - held, no reason to interfere..........of violent activities) act, 1970 no. 19 of the 1970 (hereinafter called the act).2. the state government was intimated of this order on 14-7-71 and it approved the order on 21-7 71, the petitioner was arrested on 12-7-71 on which date he was served with the grounds of detention order reported to the central government enclosing there with the grounds upon which the detention was made and other relevant documents. two representations were received from the detenu by the state government one on 11-8-71 and the other on 12-8-71 which were considered and rejected by it on 2-9-71. thereafter those representations were forwarded to the advisory board for consideration. the advisory board considered the grounds and other material placed before it and after hearing the petitioner in.....
Judgment:

P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.

1. The Petitioner challenges the validity of his detention by this application under Article 32 of the Constitution. The District Magistrate of 24-Parganas having been satisfied that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order directed his detention under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 No. 19 of the 1970 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The State Government was intimated of this order on 14-7-71 and it approved the Order on 21-7 71, The petitioner was arrested on 12-7-71 on which date he was served with the grounds of detention order reported to the Central Government enclosing there with the grounds upon which the detention was made and other relevant documents. Two representations were received from the detenu by the State government one on 11-8-71 and the other on 12-8-71 which were considered and rejected by it on 2-9-71. Thereafter those representations were forwarded to the Advisory Board for consideration. The Advisory Board considered the grounds and other material placed before it and after hearing the petitioner in person submitted its report to the State Government on 3-9-71, that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. On receipt of this advice, the State Government on 10-9-71 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act confirmed the said order of detention. The State Government also communicated the fact of the detention being confirmed to the detenu forthwith on the same day. The sole ground of detention mentioned in the grounds served on the petitioner is as follows :-

That on the night of 1-6-71 at about 01.30 hrs., while committing theft of rice from Wagon No. SE 39751 at Bongaon Railway Station Yard, you and your associates charged bombs upon the on duty R.P.F. Party with a view to do away with their lives, when challenged by them. As a result of your bomb charge, SR 3179 Himangshu Bhushan Dhar Sharma of the R.P.F. Party sustained burn injury on his person. By explosion of bombs you and your associates created panic in the station area and in the adjoining locality. You created disturbance of public order thereby.

3. The petitioner was informed that he may make such representation as he may choose, that his case will be placed before the Advisory Board within one month from the date of his detention and that if he desired to be heard in person, the Advisory Board should be intimated of such desire in the representation to be made to the State Government.

4. From the narration of facts and the relevant dates it would appear that the mandatory provisions of the Act have been complied with. The advocate for the petitioner has no complain on this aspect of the matter. He, however, on a misapprehension though that under the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution, the petitioner should have been produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. He, however, omitted to notice that Clause (3) of the said article specifically exempts a detention under any law relating to preventive detention such as chat authorised by the Act from the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 22. It is also contended that the report of the Advisory Board was only by one member and that when the records were examined and signatures of all the three members was noticed; it was contended that one of the signatures did not look like that of the member who is said to have signed. In case decided yesterday, a similar question relating to the same Board was raised. There we had held that all the three members of the Board had taken part, that all of them had signed but one of the signatures which looked like a mere stroke was typical of the signature of that member & indicates his having taken part in the proceedings of the Board, In this view we find no validity in this submission. Lastly it is contended that the acts specified in grounds do not amount to disturbance of public order though they may amount to a disturbance of law and order. We have also dealt with this aspect in the decision just now pronounced in Paritrial Sarkar v. The State of W.B. as such we do not intend to reiterate those reasons. It is also contended by reference to the decision in Keshab Roy v. State of W.B.(1) that the grounds which were the subject matter of consideration in that decision had specifically mentioned that the acts complained of by the detenu had created panic and tenor in the locality and because of that it was held that those acts were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In this case, however, it is urged that the word 'terror' has been omitted while alleging that the act complained of created panic. The learned advocate contends that the word 'panic' implies that the act complained of to be less violent and consequently has not the effect of disturbance of public order. We think that this argument is misconceived. (PANIC) is a state of mind or reaction to fearsome or gruesome events or even creating unreasoning or hysterical fear, often spreading quickly. It is the effect, the cause being due to many situations. What creates panic as also create terror depending upon the acts with which a person is confronted. We do not think there is any validity in the submission that because the word 'panic' is used, it does not indicate that the act complained of is not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

As there is no illegality in the detention, this petition is dismissed.


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