9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (12) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and services essential to the community. The grounds which were furnished to him were as follows : (1) He is a prominent businessman of Dumka and with the association of Sarvashri Mulchand Choudhury, Kanhaiaya Choudhury, Fulchand Modi, Pir Mohammad (Bengaria P.S.) Shikaripara and others he indulges in black-marketing of foodgrains. He has four trucks, one jeep and a car which have been registered in the names of his relatives Truck No. BRL 1331 which is registered in the name of his brother-in-law (sala). Sri Harichandra Agarwala was caught on 29th December, 1966 at Ranibahal near Mashanjor while carrying 95 bags of peddy for illegal trade. In this connection a case under the Essential Commodities Act has been instituted. He is on bail in this case. (2) His trucks always take to wicked routes to Saithia (West Bengal) and he himself pilots them. (3) A businessman of Barahiya disclosed that he (Rameshwar Lal Patwari) visited Barahaiya on several occasions and purchased gram, gramdal under various names and smuggled them to West Bengal. (4) On the night of 2-2-66, Sri R. S. Singh, 1st Class Magistrate along with Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, other Magistrate and police off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Constitution lay down that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice and further that the person arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours and no person shall be detained beyond the period (excluding time necessary for the journey to the court of the Magistrate) without the authority of the Magistrate. To this there is an exception in sub-clause (b) of clause (3) of the article. It says that these provisions shall not apply to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention. There are, however, other safeguards. Clause (4) of the article provides that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board had reported before the expiration of that period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention. There are other provisions prescribing other checks with which we are no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment or the officer authorised. Their satisfaction is all that the law speaks of and the courts are not constituted an appellate authority. Thus the sufficiency of the grounds cannot be agitated before the court. However, the detention of a person without a trial, merely on the subjective satisfaction of an authority however high, is a serious matter. It must require to closest scrutiny of the material on which the decision is formed, leaving no room for errors or at least avoidable errors. The very reason that the courts do not consider the reasonableness of the opinion formed or the sufficiency of the material on which it is based, indicates the need for the greatest circumspection on the part of those who wield this power over others. Since the detenu is not placed before a Magistrate and has only a right of being supplied the grounds of detention with a view to his making a representation to the Advisory Board, the grounds must not be vague or indefinite and must afford a real opportunity to make a representation against the detention. Similarly, if a vital ground is shown to be non-existing so that it could not have and ought not to have played a part in the material fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... say that the detenu was supplied grounds which were not vague or indefinite or irrelevant or non-existing ? The grounds are five in number. Putting aside the first and fifth grounds for the time, we may refer to the second, third and fourth grounds first. The second ground says that "his trucks always take to wicked routes to Saithia (West Bengal) and he himself pilots them." This ground is extremely vague. It does not mention a single instance of a truck taking a particular route so that the detenu could prove to the satisfaction of the Advisory Board that the statement was false. In Bhim Sen's case the conduct of the black-marketer was shown in an appendix. Here no particulars are furnished and beyond denying the allegation, the detenu cannot make effective representation. The details could not be such as were required to be concealed in the public interest under s. 7(2) of the Act. The third ground that "a businessman of Barahiya disclosed that he (Rameshwarlal Patwari) visited Barahiya on several occasions and purchased gram, gramdal under various names and smuggled them to West Bengal" is equally vague. Learned counsel for the State admitted that some details were necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his relatives. One such truck is mentioned, namely, truck No. BRL 1331. It is said to be registered in the name of his brother-in-law and it is further stated that it was caught on December 29, 1966 at Ranibahal (near Mashanjor) while carrying 95 bags of paddy for 'illegal trade' and that in this connection a case under the Essential Commodities Act has been instituted against 'him'. It is not clear who is meant the appellant or his brother-in-law. In a notice from the District Supply Officer, Dumka it was stated : "It was learnt from your driver that on 29-11-66 (sic) at 3.50 a.m., ninety five bags of paddy (190 mds.) was coming from Ranibahal to Dumka in your truck BRL 1331 belonged to you..." 14. The appellant has denied that the paddy belonged to him. He pointed out that in the notice it was admitted that the paddy was being taken to Dumka in Bihar, while in the grounds it was stated that it was on its way to West Bengal and that carrying of goods from Ranibahal to Dumka (both in Bihar) was no offence. In his reply to the District Supply Officer the appellant had stated : "1. I am a retail dealer in food-grains holding foodgrain Licence No. 204 of 1966. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; ........... 10. That the paddy in question is not involved in any offence the same should be released forthwith." 16. When these documents came to be filed, the return of the State Government made the following reply and avoided the issue : "4.... It appears that the notice was issued on the statement of the driver of the truck who stated that he was bringing 95 bags of paddy from Ranibahal to Dumka in the truck belonging to the appellant. The statement of the driver clearly shows that the truck belonged to the appellant. The driver did not tell any thing about the facts stated in annexure 'D' to special leave paper book (Page 49 to 51)." 17. This shows that there was no inquiry at all. The alleged statement of the driver was accepted and it was assumed that the paddy was being taken to West Bengal. At least the explanation of the persons concerned could have been obtained. This is clearly a case of jumping to a conclusion which is being lamely justified, when it is questioned with written record. In these circumstances there is much reason to think that this ground probably did not exist although we are not in a position to say that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
