TMI Blog1974 (3) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sheeted by Mohania Police on 28-11-66 for the offence punishable under section 7 F.C. Act and 125 DIR 1962 and the case is still pending in the Court, Magistrate of Bhabhua (Bihar) as the proceedings have been stayed by the orders of the High Court, Patna . Ground No. 4 : That with a view to continue your anti-social activities and to save yourself from the clutches of law you have started a firm under the name and style of M/s Shyam Sunder Ashok Kumar, in Mohalla Machchodari P. S. Kotwali, Varanasi City some time in the year 1966 or 1967 and You have purposely associated your minor son Ashok Kumar, your brother Shyam Sunder and a lady of your family as partners in the said firm only in name while, in fact, you are actively transacting the entire business of the said firm to carry on the illegal activities . Ground No. 5 : That taking undue advantage of the acute shortage of the foodgrains in the state due to the failure of the rains disrupt the fair and equitable distribution amongst the public you have succeeded in getting large quantity of maize, bajra and jawar and smuggled to and stored in your goodown at Mohania (Bihar), a non-producing area of these foodgrains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Government under the above Act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and it is necessary to detain you . 9-1-84Sup.C.T. /75 The petitioner applied to the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution read with section 491 of the, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of detention and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench on 26th November, 1973. The petitioner obtained special leave to appeal against the judgment on 19th December, 1973 and the same has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 1973. The petitioner also filed writ petition No. 23 of 1974 before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution on 20th December, 1973, against the order of the State Government of 21st November, 1973, confirming the aforesaid order of detention under sect-ion 12.(1) of the Act and rule nisi was issued on 31st January, 1974. Both the matters are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. On behalf of the petitioner, the following submissions are made by Mr. Frank Anthony : (1) There was considerable delay in the Government disposing of the representation of the detenu a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... great force in the submission of Mr. Anthony that ground No. 3 is the corner-stone of ground No. 4. It is clear that ground No. 3 is covered by a prosecution in the criminal court which is pending trial in Bihar. It should be mentioned here that the High Court of Patna in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction cases Nos. 39 and 40 of 1965 by order dated 21st August, 1965, quashed an order of detention of the petitioner made on 19th July, 1965, based on the allegations in the same first information report of 11th October, 1964, of Mohania Police Station under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and various other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The identical facts arc now relied upon in ground No. 3. Again ground No. 8 is also the subject matter of criminal case with reference to the first information report of 3rd July 1973 (Annexure 12 at page 288 of the writ petition). There is no controversy that the said criminal case is still pending. Similarly grounds Nos. 9 and 10 are covered by a criminal case with reference to first information report dated 5th August, 1973 and the relative charge-sheet dated 19th September, 1973 under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntation to establish his innocence. Being faced with a criminal prosecution which is pending against him all through, we are clearly of the view that the detenu has not got a proper and reasonable opportunity in accordance with law to make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention covered by the said proceeding. Secondly, the question is whether it is open to the detaining authority to choose two parallel proceedings against the detenu as in this case. The fact that the ground of detention could be a subject matter of criminal prosecution is not enough to vitiate a detention order if the detaining authority does not choose to prosecute him and only passes an open trial. The choice of the authority concerned for the mode of no answer that the detenu must be prosecuted in the criminal court in an open trial. The choice of the authority concerned for the, mode of tackling the illegal activity cannot per se be illegal and the order of detention will be judged on its merits in accordance with the law laid down by this Court. The position will be, however, entirely different if the authority concerned makes an order of detention under the Act and also prosecutes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the detention in this case must be held to be illegal. As too many cooks spoil the broth so also too many grounds may vitiate an order of detention if any one of them is irrelevant or nonexistent. The authority, therefore, has to be careful enough to see that only relevant and valid grounds are selected having a nexus with the object of the order of detention. Although the aim and object of the order of detention be laudable and the antecedents of a detenu be extremely reproachable yet it is essential that if it is desired to detain a person without trial, the authorities concerned should conform to the requirements of the law. The shady antecedents of the detenu cannot provide a justification for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions. The scope of the inquiry in the case of preventive detention based upon subjective satisfaction being necessarily narrow and limited, the scrutiny of the court has to be even stricter than in a normal case of punitive trial. Since we have held the order of detention as invalid for the reasons given above, it is not necessary to deal with the other grounds submitted by Mr. Anthony. The writ petition and the appeal are allowed. The jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
