K M CHACKO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition which was originally brought as a criminal Revision Petition has been subsequently permitted to be converted into a criminal miscellaneous petition on the application of the petitioner. It purports to be presented under S. 402 of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code for the issue of a writ of the nature of a Habeaus Corpus. The Advocate General appears on behalf of the State who is the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner has been ordered to be detained in the central Prison at Trivandrum for a period of three months under the Preventive Detention Act (Act IV of 1950 ). THE order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate of Quilon on the 24th of October 195 0. By a later order passed on the 26th of October the grounds on which the detention order was made were communicated to petitioner as required by S. 1 of the Act. THE prayer in the present petition is that this Court may be pleased to direct that the petitioner may be released from custody as the detention is not legal. THE original order passed by the District Magistrate on 20. 10. 1950 is worded as follows: "whereas I am satisfied from the Police report and the connected records that K. M. Chacko Alias Chackochi, Kalladal Veedu, thazhekara Muri, Thazhekara Pakuthi, Wholesale Ration Dealer in Depot No. 4 in thazhekara Pakuthy, Mavelikara Taluk has been conducting regular black marketing of rationed articles for the past five years and that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, it is necessary that he should be detained. "now therefore I, K. Kunjukrishna Pillai, District magistrate, Quilon, in exercise of the powers vested in him under S. 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, (Act IV of 1950) hereby order that the said K. M. Chacko Alias Chackochi be detained in the Central Prison, Trivandrum, for a period of three months. "given under my hand and the Seal of the Court this the 24th day of October 1950. Sd. K. Kunjukrishna Pillai, District magistrate. " THE amplified order issued on 26. 10. 1950 is worded as follows "it is seen from the reports received that you have been conducting regular black marketting of rationed articles for the past about 5 years. " "from investigation of certain crime cases also it has come out that you were involved in the black marketting of rice and wheat. " "in order to prevent you from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, you have been ordered to be detained in the Central Prison, trivandrum, under the Preventive Detention Act (Act IV of 1950) for a period of three months by my order C. No. 503/50/magl. dated 24. 10. 1950. " "you are entitled to make any representation against the order of detention in writing before Government under S. 7 (i) of the act. " Sd. K. Kunjukrishna Pillai, District Magistrate. "

(3.) IT will be seen from these relevant provisions that although extraordinary jurisdiction is conferred upon States and certain subordinate officers of States in special cases the legislature has provided all reasonable precautions and safeguards for ensuring that the special jurisdiction conferred by the Act is not exercised arbitrarily. The Advisory board and the Government concerned having been vested with the power of scrutinising the merits of each case, the chances of a wrongful exercise of jurisdiction by a subordinate authority under the Act is minimised. This coupled with the fact that the Act is to remain in force only for a limited period, indicates that it is an emergency legislation which provides for preventive detention of persons who are likely to cause incalculable harm to the State or its security by committing acts which are prejudicial to the interests of the State. Although liberty of the person is one of the fundamental rights recognised by the Constitution yet the safety of the State is of supreme or paramount importance and is properly given the prominence that it deserves.