ANAL CHANDRA BANARJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of detention, dated April 7, 1971, passed against the petitioner herein and in pursuance of which the petitioner was arrested and detained in jail the next day, recites that it was passed under sec. 3 (1) and (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, President's Act 19 of 1970, the ground for which was that the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, who passed it, was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) The grounds of detention served on him at the time of his arrest narrated three incidents in which he was said to have been involved. The first ground was that on November 13, 1970 he together with some others, committed theft of copper traction wire from a wagon lying in Naihati South Yard, and that when the railway police and the railway protection force on duty rushed at the spot, the petitioner and his associates threw bombs at them with intent to kill them. The second ground was that on December 23, 1970, the petitioner and his associates were removing 29 pieces of rail from the same railway yard and when the members of the railway protection force attempted to stop, them from doing so, the petitioner and his said associates threw bombs at them with intent to kill them. The third and the last ground was as follows:

(3.) From the Dum Dum Central Jail where the petitioner was detained, he made a representation, dated April 29, 1971, to the State Government. That representation together with the record of the case was placed before the Advisory Board, who it appears, also heard the petitioner in person. The representation, dated April 29, 1971 was in general terms in which the petitioner denied the said grounds alleged against him, and maintained that he was a law abiding citizen who never indulged in activities of the kind alleged against him. The Board, after considering the said representation, the said record of the case and after hearing him, as aforesaid, reported that there was, in its opinion, sufficient cause for his detention. It seems that thereupon the Government confirmed the said detention order and directed continuation of his detention thereunder. So far there does not appear to be any difficulty as all the steps following the petitioner's arrest appear to have been taken by the detaining authority in compliance with the provisions of the Act.