DULAL CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF BIRBHUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was obtained on an application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for a Writ in the nature of Habeas corpus. It relates to an order of detention dated the 20th of October, 1971, passed by the District Magistrate, birbhum in exercise of the powers vested in him under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of section 3 of the maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The detenu was taken into custody on and from the 29th of August, 1972 by virtue of the said order on the ground that he had been acting "in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order". The particulars given to the detenu as evidence thereof were as follows: - (1) On 28. 5. 71 between 20. 30 hrs. and 20. 45 hrs. the detenu along with others being armed with revolver daggers, bombs and other lethal weapons raided the house of gunlicencee Sr. Abdul Motleb, S/o late Md. Unnas of haripur, P. S. Suri and forcibly took away his S. B. B. L, gun No. 42117. This created serious panic and terror in the locality. (2) On 28. 5. 71 around 21. 30 hrs. the detenu along with others being armed with deadly weapons broke open the doors of the house of gun licensee Sr. Erfan Ali, S/o, Hazi Sr. Rahim of haripur, P. S. Suri and took away forcibly his D. B. B. L. gun No. 58 by putting him in fear of instant death. This created serious panic and terror in the locality.

(2.) IT further appears that on the said 29th of August, 1972 a corrigendum to the detention order was issued district Magistrate concerned which reads as follows: government of West Bengal office of the D. M. Birbhurn. No. 4201c Dated 29. 8. 72. "for the words the security of the state or the maintenance of public order' appearing in my above order please read 'the maintenance of public order'. Given under my hand and seal of Office" sd/- District Magistrate, Birbhum 29. 8. 72.

(3.) MR. Narayan Mukharjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf or the State placed before the Court the relevant details from which it would appear that with reference to the said order dated the 20th October, 1971 the statutory requirements under the maintenance of Internal Security Act were duly complied with. Nobody appeared on behalf of the detenu who filed this petition from the jail. When the Court pointed out to the learned Advocate appearing for the State that the order of the District Magistrate showed that his satisfaction was on the alternative grounds which meant that he was not certain whether he had reached his subjective satisfaction on the ground of danger to public order or danger to security of the State, the learned advocate stated that the corrigendum later on issued by the District Magistrate cured the irregularity, if any, of the original order. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mukherjee appeared as amicus curiae and was of considerable assistance to the Court.