TMI Blog1974 (2) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was arrested on 30th August, 1972 and immediately on his arrest the grounds on which the order of detention was made were served on him by a communication dated 28th August, 1972 made under Section 8 Sub-section (1) of the Act. There was only one ground set out in this communication and it was in the following terms. That on 11-8-72 at about 14.05 hrs. you and your associates were removing three bales of empty gunny bags by breaking open wagon No. WR-386335 near Goala Fatak North Cabin of Naihati Railway Yard. Being challenged by the local R.G. members you and your associates fled away leaving behind the stolen Gunny bags. The State Government thereafter placed before the Advisory Board the ground on which the order of detention was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that merely on the strength of the isolated act attributed to the petitioner in this ground, it was not possible to justify the satisfaction alleged to have been reached by the District Magistrate, the respondent urged that wagon breaking had become a menacingly frequent crime which was seriously affecting movement of essential commodities and in the context of this background, the act of wagon breaking committed by the petitioner, though single and solitary, could reasonably lead to the satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from indulging in further acts of wagon breaking. Now in a given situation where wagon breaking as a crime has assumed alarming proportions and it is seriously ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to detain him. The nature of the act and the attendant circumstances may in a given case be such as to reasonably justify an inference that the person concerned, if not detained, would be likely to indulge in commission of such acts in future. The order of detention is essentially a precautionary measure and it is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behavior of a person based on his past conduct judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Such past conduct may consist of one single act or of a series of acts. But whatever it be, it must be of such a nature that an inference can reasonably be drawn from it that the person concerned would be likely to repeat such acts so as to warrant his detention. It may be easier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilway wagons. The grounds on which the order of detention was really made, therefore, included the ground that the petitioner was a notoricus wagon breaker who was systematically engaged in breaking railway wagons and committing theft of rice and wheat. This ground was, however, not communicated to the petitioner and he was not given an opportunity of making a representation against it. This was clearly in breach of the requirement of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act and it also constituted violatton of the Constitutional guarantee embodied in Article 22, Clause (5) of the Constitution. The order of detention was, thus, vitiated by a serious infirmity and it must be held to be invalid. We are supported in this view by two decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
