9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (5) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent ex parte. 676 1952. May 26. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Bose J .... This is an appeal from an order of the Bombay High Court directing the release of the respondent who had been detained under section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. 'The learned Attorney-General states at the outset that Government does not want to re-arrest the respondent but merely desires to test the High Court's decision on certain points which will have far-reaching effects on preventive detentions in the State of Bombay. Following the precedent of their Lordships of the Privy Council in King-Emperor v. Vimlabai Deshpande(1) we proceed to decide the appeal but direct that the respondent shall not in any event be rearrested in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uot; He was served with the grounds of detention on the 26th of July, 1950, and with a fuller set on the 9th of August. The original grounds were as follows: "In furtherance of your campaign for non-payment of rent, you were instigating the people in the Belgaum District to commit acts of violence against landlords. ''In all probability, you will continue to do so." The second set gave the following additional particulars: "The people in Belgaum District, whom you were instigating to commit acts of violence against landlords in furtherance of your campaign for non-payment of rent, were the tenants in Hadalge and round about villages in the Khanapur Taluka of Belgaum District, and the said instigation was carried on by you ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urage laxity of expression, nor do we mean to suggest that ingenious experiments regarding the permissible limits of departure from the language of a Statute or of the Constitution will be worthwhile, but when all is said and done we must look to the substance of article 166 and of the Order. The short answer in this case is that the order under consideration is "expressed" to be made in the name of the Governor because it says "By order of the Governor." One of the meanings of "expressed" is to make known the opinions or the feelings of a particular person and when a Secretary to Government apprehends a man and tells him in the order that this is being done under the orders of the Governor, he is in substance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain Commissioners of Police. The list does not include the Governor of a State. Now, though the term "State Government" appearing in an enactment means the Governor of the State, there is no provision of law which equates the term Governor with the State Government of which he happens to be the head. On the contrary, the Constitution invests him with certain functions and powers which are separate from those of his Government. It was therefore appropriate that the order in this case should have set out that the Government of Bombay was satisfied and not some other authority not contemplated by the Act and that that Government directed the detention. It was also proper that the order should have been executed under the orders of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has to be proved by other means it becomes impossible to lay down any rule regarding either the quantum of evidence necessary to satisfy the Court which is called upon to decide the question or the nature of the evidence required. This is a question of fact which must be different in each case. Of course, sitting as a court of appeal, it would have been necessary for us to decide this had we reached a different conclusion on the first point and had the State Government desired the re.arrest of the respondent. But as we are only asked to deal with general principles, all we need say as regards this is that it is not necessary in every case to call the Minister in charge. if the Secretary. or any other person, has the requisite means of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce other than that of the man himself, and if the Home Secretary has the requisite means of knowledge, for example, if the Minister had told him that he was satisfied or he had indicated satisfaction by his conduct and acts, and the Home Secretary's affidavit was regarded as sufficient in the particular case, then that would constitute legally sufficient proof. But whether that would be enough in any given case. or whether the' 'best evidence rule" should be applied in strictness in that particular case, must necessarily depend upon its facts. In the present case, there was the element that 57 cases were dealt with in the course of 6 days (1) (1910) I.L.R. 37 Cal. 259. 682 and orders passed in all on one day. But we do not intend t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
