TMI Blog1974 (12) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enting him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The District Magistrate forthwith reported the fact to the making of the order of detention to the State Government and the order of detention was approved by the State Government on 22nd January, 1972. Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested on 18th February, 1972 and immediately on arrest, the grounds of detention were served on him. The petitioner made a representation against the order of detention on 14th March, 1972 but this representation was rejected by the State Government on 24th March, 1972. In the meantime the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sory Board and this report clearly showed that the Advisory Board had before it the representation of the petitioner and it was after considering the representation of the petitioner that the Advisory Board gave its opinion. This contention must, therefore, be rejected. 3. The petitioner then contended that though the order of detention was made on 12th January, 1972. The petitioner was not arrested until 18th February, 1972 and this time lag of about one month between the date of the order of detention and the date of the petitioner's arrest showed that the District Magistrate was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for detention of the petitioner, for otherwise he would have tried to secure the arrest of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion referred to two incidents of theft. One was an incident of theft of three iron telephone posts which took place on 24th August, 1971 and the other was an incident of theft of overhead electric copper wire which took place on 5th September, 1971. Salanpur P.S. Case No. 3 was registered in respect of the first incident, while Salanpur P.S. Case No. 7 was registered in respect of the second incident. The name of the petitioner did not figure in the first information report in regard to either of these two incidents but his participation was revealed in the course of investigation. No charge sheet could, however, be filed against him, because the witnesses were not prepared to come forward to give evidence against him for fear of danger to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
