1987 (11) TMI 393 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in passing the detention order.
2. Allegation of diverting levy cement for private use.
3. Delay in disposing of the second representation by the Central Government.
4. Non-placement of relevant facts before the detaining authority.
5. Detention order based on a solitary incident (not pressed).

Summary:

1. Delay in Passing the Detention Order:
Mr. Tarkunde, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the delay of about five months from the alleged incident on 18.12.1986 to the passing of the detention order on 15.5.1987 vitiates the order. The respondents explained that the detenu was absconding for three months until his arrest on 18.3.1987, and the investigation continued until 13.5.1987. The Court found the delay satisfactorily explained and cited precedents where delays of similar or longer durations were upheld. Thus, the first point was rejected.

2. Allegation of Diverting Levy Cement for Private Use:
Mr. Tarkunde contended that the levy cement being transferred into non-levy cement bags did not belong to Madhava Rao, and the detention order was based on this incorrect assumption. The Court noted that there was sufficient material before the District Magistrate to justify his opinion. The detenu's acceptance of the allegations in his statement u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though not substantive evidence in a criminal case, was considered relevant for preventive detention. The Court emphasized that it is not for them to assess the probative value of the evidence available to the detaining authority and found the second point without merit.

3. Delay in Disposing of the Second Representation by the Central Government:
The second representation filed by the detenu's cousin on 5.6.1987 was disposed of by the Central Government about three months later. The Court held that the duty to exercise the power of revocation u/s 14 of the Act arises only when new and relevant facts come to light, which was not the case here. The Court cited precedents to support that there is no right for the detenu to have successive representations based on the same grounds formally disposed of again. Thus, the third point was rejected.

4. Non-Placement of Relevant Facts Before the Detaining Authority:
The petitioner argued that the retraction of statements by Krishna Murthy and Smt. Mahati Singh and the order granting bail to the detenu were not placed before the detaining authority. The Court found that these individuals had indeed been interrogated by the police, as stated in their applications for anticipatory bail. The Court reiterated that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not to be questioned by the Court. The Court found that there was ample material for the District Magistrate to base his subjective satisfaction and rejected this point.

5. Detention Order Based on a Solitary Incident:
This point was not pressed by the learned counsel during arguments and was therefore not addressed in detail by the Court. The Court noted that the detaining authority considered the detenu's involvement in multiple contract works for the Railways and found the detention necessary to prevent further subversive acts.

Conclusion:
The Court found no merit in the case for quashing the impugned detention order. Both the writ petition and the special leave application were dismissed.