9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Proximity of the incident to the order of detention. 2. Relevance of the act to public order. 3. Consideration of undisclosed material. 4. Delay in arresting the petitioner. 5. Delay in reporting the detention order to the State Government. Summary: 1. Proximity of the incident to the order of detention: The petitioner challenged the detention order on the grounds that the incident cited was too remote, occurring six months prior. The Court held that "there must be a live link between the grounds of criminal activity alleged by the detaining authority and the purpose of detention." The Court emphasized that the test of proximity is not rigid and depends on the nature of the acts and the reasons for the delay. In this case, the act was a "daring act of dacoity" indicating the petitioner was a "habituated and hardened criminal," justifying the detention. 2. Relevance of the act to public order: The petitioner argued that the incident affected only law and order, not public order. The Court distinguished between law and order and public order, stating that public order "embraces more of the community." The act of dacoity "created a panic in the locality and seriously disturbed the even tempo of life of the community," thus affecting public order. The subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate was deemed relevant and valid. 3. Consideration of undisclosed material: The petitioner contended that undisclosed material from his history sheet was considered in the detention decision. The Court found no material other than that set out in the grounds of detention was considered, rejecting this contention. 4. Delay in arresting the petitioner: The petitioner argued that the delay of twenty days between the detention order and his arrest invalidated the detention. The Court found the delay reasonable and explained that the petitioner was in jail when the order was made and was arrested promptly upon release. 5. Delay in reporting the detention order to the State Government: The petitioner claimed a violation of section 3, sub-section (3) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, due to a five-day delay in reporting the detention order to the State Government. The Court applied the test of whether the report was sent "with all reasonable despatch and without avoidable delay." The District Magistrate's affidavit explained the delay due to workload and public holidays, which the Court found sufficient to show compliance with the statutory requirement. Conclusion: All contentions raised by the petitioner were found to lack substance, and the petition was dismissed. The rule was discharged.
|
