9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng him on his left elbow. The detenu and other associates threatened Raja that his intestine will be taken out in case he reported the matter to the police. The people on the road got scared and ran helter skelter. Bala as well as Raja were taken for medical treatment. As offence under section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the detenu and other associates. They were arrested. The Magistrate released them on bail. They availed of bail. (b) On 9-10-1991 at night, Rajendra Chalke along with residents of Radha Balwant Niwas, Kelkar Road, Dadar, were witnessing a Garba dance at Kelkarwadi. The detenu and other associates rushed towards Rajendra, gave repeated blows with weapons on several parts of his body. Rajendra fell down, shouted loudly for help, but none came to his rescue due to fear of the detenu and his associates. People got scared and ran away from the place as the detenu and his associates brandished the weapons towards them to terrorise them. Rajendra was removed to K.E.M. Hospital with grievous injuries. An offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the detenu and others. The d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unds do not pertain to the maintenance of the public order. 4. Point No. 1 :- The order of detention has, along with the grounds, been served on the detenu on 17-5-1992. The detenu has been informed that if he wishes to make any representation to the Advisory Board against the detention order, he could do so and address it to the Chairman and submit through the Superintendent of Jail. He was further informed that he shall be heard in person by the Board if it considers it necessary to do so if he so desires and the desire, if any, to be heard in person may also be similarly communicated. The detenu neither made any representation nor expressed a desire to be heard in person in response to that communication. The Secretary, Advisory Board issued a letter dated 22-5-1992 informing that in case the Petitioner wanted to make a representation he could address it to the Chairman, immediately. The Petitioner did not respond. Meeting of the Board was fixed on 26-6-1992. As per the normal practice he was brought from Nasik Prison to Bombay on 22-6-1992 for giving personal hearing by the Board. On 26-6-1992 he made detailed 7 paged representation couched in legal, making three prayer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und altruistic. Seven paged representation obviously drafted by a person knowing laws of detention was presented in the meeting. When questioned, no prayer for adjournment was made. There is considerable force in the stand taken by the Respondents that the whole move was strategic solely with a view to raise a ground and not with a view to have hearing. Submission that the Advisory Board was duty bound to adjourn the hearing suo motu only on noticing written prayer for assistance of a next friend, cannot be accepted. No request for adjournment was made by the Petitioner. Advisory Board was within the its right not to adjourn the matter without a request. Moreover, adjournment may not be granted even if asked for. If refusal is unjustified and prejudice the case of the detenu, it may affect the validity of the order. But all will depend upon totality of circumstances in each case. In this connection it will have to be borne in mind that personal hearing before the Advisory Board is not mandatory under law. It has to be granted only if the Board considers it necessary or if the detenu asked for it. In this connection useful reference may be made to the decision of the Madras High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act is also a law and it prescribes a procedure for taking personal liberty. 8. Point No. 3. The grounds of detention mean not only the factual inferences but, mean the factual inference plus the material on which the inference have been drawn. In case the inference about possibility of carrying on in future the prejudicial activities affecting the public order can be reasonably drawn from the incidents, detention order can be founded upon those activities for reaching the subjective satisfaction. Existence of statement of residents of locality unconnected with the actual incident to the effect that they were terrorised due to the activities of the detenu is not a must. Indeed the subjective satisfaction cannot be questioned on the ground of insufficiency of the factual material. Some one may reasonably dub recording of each statement as farcical. In this context, we may reproduce the following passage from the case of Parkash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Kerala, 1986 CriLJ 786 : There is no rule of law that commonsense should be put in cold storage while considering constitutional provisions for safeguards against misuse of powers by autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
