SUBHAS CHANDRA AWAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of detention dated May 12, 1971 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Hooghly in exercise of his powers under Section 3(1) read with Section 3 (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act 1970 hereinatfer referred to as the said Act and the consequent detention of the detenu Subhas Chandra Awan is the subject -matter of challenge in this Rule. It appears that the Additional District Magistrate passed the aforesaid order being satisfied that such detention was necessary with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner 'prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.' The grounds of detention as served on the detenu under Section 8 of the said Act recite as follows 'that you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the particulars given below: (1) On 26 -1 -1971 at about 17.00 hrs you demanded subscription of Rs. 500/ -for C. P. I. (ML) fund from one Phani Bhusan Horn Chowdhury of Madhabpur, P.S. Chanditala but Shri Horn Chowdhury did not comply with the demand. So on the night of 29 -1 -1971 at about 01.30 hours you along with your associates armed with lethal weapons went to the house of Shri Phani Bhusan Horn Chowdhury at Madhabpur under P.S. Chanditala and asked him to open the door. As he refused to open the door, you exploded two bombs on the wall of his house to terrorise him and the inmates of the house. (2) On 2 -3 -1971 at about 10.30 hours you along with your associates stabbed Dr. Ranjit Chatterjee, President of local Bangla Congress Committee to death on the Jonai Station Road. P. S. Chanditala. (3) On 1 -5 -1971 at about 21.15 hours you along with your associates entered the Dankuni Post Office, P.S. Chanditala armed with daggers and compelled the Post Master to open the iron safe and looted away postal cash Rs. 1014.79 paise.

(2.) THIS Rule is being contested by the respondents who have filed an affidavitinopposition and Mr. Sanyal is appearing on their behalf.

(3.) ON the first point raised we are of the opinion that on the particular provisions of the Act under which the detention has been effected there was no irregularity in recording the satisfaction in the alternative manner with reference to security of State or maintenance of public order or to draw up the grounds as drawn up in the present case. Section 3 (1) of the said Act authorises preventive detention of any person if his detention is considered necessary with a view to preventing him from 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.' Sub -para. (2) incorporates a statutory definition of what is meant by 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order' by setting out different activities in different clauses which constitute such acting, Therefore, in our opinion by statutory fiction on the provisions of the statute under consideration the very act which may constitute prejudicial to the maintenance of public order would necessarily constitute prejudicial to the security of the State. The normal difference in the concept of the security of the State and the maintenance of public order has for the purpose of this Act been wiped away and both the things have been equated to each other. This being the position, no irregularity arises if on the same set of acts of the detenu if the acts come within the sanction of Section 3 (2) of the Act the Detaining Authority arrives at a satisfaction that the person concerned was acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order and refers to same set of acts as grounds for such a satisfaction. This view of ours finds ample support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shamlal v. The State of West Bengal : 1971CriLJ1703 In this view we find no merit in the first objection raised by Mr. Mukherjee and overrule the same.