LAWS(CAL)-1973-8-19

PABITRA KUMAR MITRA Vs. SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT

Decided On August 31, 1973
PABITRA KUMAR MITRA Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule obtained by the petitioner under section 49of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to an order of the District Magistrate, howrah, dated the 26th of September, 1972, passed in exercise of powers conferred on him under sub-section (1)read with sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act ). The petitioner was taken into custody on and from the 10th of April,1973, pursuant to the said order and was served with the grounds of detention with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the particulars given below : -That on 27-7-72 at about 18-00 hrs. the detenu along with his associates being armed with rivolver, pipe gun, knives and bombs attacked Shri Dulal Manjhi son of Banamali Manjhi of 1/4,gadaclhar Mistri Lane, P. S. Shibpur (Howrah) and three others on New Road (near Stadium), Tantipara, P. S. Shibpur while they were passing along that road caused bleeding injuries on the person of Dulal Manjhi by hurling bombs. This incident created a panic in the locality and disturbed public order.

(2.) THE petitioner by a supplementary affidavit affirmed on the 16th of July,1973 by one Shib Shankar Mitra also stated that the petitioner was served with the grounds in Bengali, a copy where of was annexed to the said supplementary affidavit. No affidavit-in-opposition has been affirmed on behalf of the State.

(3.) MR. Naranarayan Guptoo, with Mr. Chinmoy Chowdhury appeared in support of the petition which was opposed on behalf of the State by Mr. Priti Barman appearing with Mrs. Uma Sanyal. Mr. Guptoo challenged the validity of the order as there is discrepancy in the English and Bengali versions of the grounds served, for malafides, for lack of proximity of the arrest with the detention order and the incident involved and lastly because the ground involved only one incident which according to him could not furnish a valid foundation for detention.