9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (11) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detention were duly served on him at the time of his arrest on February 11, 1972. Those grounds are 1. That on 6-1-72 at about 03.30 has. you along with your associates including (1) teka Bahadur son of Shri Harak Bir Bahadur of Hutton Road, P.S. Asansol, Dist. Burdwan, (2) Shri Ganesh Das, son of Shri Chote Das of Gour Mondal Road, P.S. Asansol, Dist. Burdwan committed theft in respect of electric copper wire (about 1500 ft. in length) at Hatgarui near Sen-Releigh Water Pump, P.S. Asansol, Dist. Burdwan. As a result of this theft, water supply as 9 92 well as electric supply in Sen-Releigh Housing Colony, P.S. Asansol, Dist. Burdwan was totally disrupted for about 8 hours to the sufferings of the people of the locality. 2. That on 12-1-72 at about 04.00 hrs. you along with your associates including (1) Teka Bahadur son of Shri Harak Bir Bahadur of Hutton Road, P.S. Asansol Dist. Burdwan (2) Ganesh Das, son of Shri Chote Das of Gour Mondal Road, P.S. Asansol, Dist. Burdwan committed theft in respect of electric copper wire (about 3000 ft. in length) from the electric poles at 'C' Block, Son Releigh Housing Colony, P.S. Asansol Dist. Burdwan. When challenged by the inhab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f internal security and matters connected therewith. Its enactment was necessitated because in view of the prevailing situation in the country and the developments across the border it was considered necessary for urgent and effective preventive action in the interest of national security, to have powers of preventive detention to deal effectively with threats to the defence and the security of India because the existing laws available to deal with the situation were not found to be adequate. The emergent requirement for such a law would be obvious from the fact that before its enactment it had been considered necessary to promulgate the Maintenance of Internal Security Ordinance, 1971 which was replaced by the present Act. Under s. 3(1) of the Act, the Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to, inter alia, the security of the State or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, it is necessary to, do so, make an order directing that such person be detained. Sub-section (2) of this section authorises District Magistrates and certain oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he following words The next contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the order is mala fide. The reason for this contention is that it was originally intended to prosecute the petitioners under S. 3 of the Official Secrets Act and When the authorities were unable to get sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction they decided to drop the criminal proceedings and to order the detention of the petitioners. This by itself is not sufficient to lead to the inference that the action of the detaining authority was mala fide. It may very well be that the executive authorities felt that it was not possible to obtain a conviction for a particular offence under the Official Secrets Act, at the same time they might reasonably come to the conclusion that the activities of the petitioners which had been watched for over two years before the order of detention was passed were of such a nature as to justify the order of detention. We cannot infer merely from the fact that the authorities decided to drop the case under the Official Secrets Act and thereafter to order the detention of the petitioners under the Rules that the order of detention was mala fide. As we have already said, it may no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present against them. The fact, therefore, that a prosecution under the Code could also have been launched is not a valid ground for saving ,that it precludes the authority from acting under the Act. The grievance that the petitioner Ought to have been proceeded against in a court of law and that the investigating agency did not put him on a regular trial for want of evidence can thus be no bar to his detention if the detaining authority under the Act is satisfied that it is necessary to make the order of preventive detention on the grounds contemplated by the Act. The grounds on the basis of which the petitioner has been detained are clear, relevant and germane to the object and purpose for which preventive detention is authorised by the Act. The petitioner is stated to have committed theft of electric copper wires on January 6 and 12, 1972. When he was challenged by the inhabitants of the area he and his associates hurled bombs towards them. The theft of electric wire totally disrupted electric supplies for several hours in the areas concerned. This conduct is very relevant for satisfying the authority concerned that it is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
