JETHA LAHARANG Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application for a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus the detenu is challenging an order of detention assed by the District Magistrate. Darieeline. on the 6th December. 1973 in the exercise of nower conferred by Sub -section (1) read with Sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner preiudicial to the maintenance of tomblike order. The order of detention was passed on the 6th December. 1973 and on that very day report was made to the State Government under Sub -section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act. The detenu was arrested Pursuant to that order on and the detention commenced from 7th December. 1975 (1973 ?). Such detention was approved by the State Government on 17th December. 1973 and on that very day the matter was reported to the Central Government. The case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board, under Section 10 of the said Act. on the 4th January. 1974 and on 1st February. 1974 the Board submitted its report to the effect that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. Representation of the detenu made on the 11th February. 1974 was duly considered by the State Government and the same was reiected on the 20th February. 1974. By an order dated 4th March. 1974 the detention was confirmed by the State Government.

(2.) THE grounds of detention served on the detenu rely on the following incident : -

(3.) IT is now well settled that the grounds must be communicated in a clear and unambiguous terms giving as much particulars as will facilitate makins of an effective representation in order to satisfy the authority concerned that the order is unfounded or invalid. In this context we may refer to a recent decision of Supreme Court beina Ajit Kumar Kavirai v. District Magistrate. Birbhum. : 1974CriLJ1304 . The arounds must be read as a whole; one portion cannot be read jsolatedlv out of its context. (Arun Kumar Ghosh v. State of West Bengal. : 1972CriLJ882 and Netaipada Saha v. State of West Bengal. : 1972CriLJ1000 . It is also well settled that read as a whole the grounds must be reasonably clear and self -sufficient. They must contain pith and substance of primary facts but not subsidiary facts or evidential details, which are not of essential constituent. (Vakil Singh v -State of Jammu and Kashmir. : 1975CriLJ7 . A detenu is not entitled to know the evidence or the source of information. (Har Jas v. State of Puniab : 1973CriLJ1602 . Havana regard to this well settled principles we are of the opinion that the grounds served do not suffer from vasueness. In our opinion all necessarv particulars of all the material facts have been eiven in the around so as to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. The date, time and the place of occurrence and the manner in which the acts were committed including the names of the associates of the detenu are given. The pith and substance of all the primary facts have been eiven. Read as a whole the arounds are clear and unambiguous. Regarding the names of 20 labourers it if to be kept in mind that admittedly the petitioner is also a worker of the Tea Estate in auestion. He also, admittedly resides in a village within or near that tea estate. Under these circumstances there is no auestion of any difficulty in identifying these persons. It is to be kept in mind that it is not the case of the detenu that no such incident took place. Further in our opinion the giving of names of these 20 labourers, against whom the action of the detenu was directed was not of essential nature. At the most they can be expressed as subsidiary facts or evidential details absence of which does not affect the order of detention. It is now well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court that even if the names of the associates of the detenu is not piven in the ground, the detention would not be bad on that ground alone, (Milan Banik v. State of West Bengal. : 1974CriLJ917 and other,, cases). On similar reasons merely because the names of the victims or persons against whom the action of the detenu and hip associates were directed are not given, it does not affect the validity of the order of detention. As a matter of fact a Division Bench of this Court has held that not merely eivine names of some of the victims does not affect the validity of the order of detention. Pabitra Kumar Mitra v. Secretary. Home Department 77 Cal WN 1054 :1974 Cri LJ 1177). So far as the expression 'top of No. II' is concerned, as already stated the detenu is himself a worker of tea estate. Therefore, it cannot be difficult for him to understand what is meant by that exoression. As a matter of fact it would appear from para. 7 of the petition that the petitioner himself has understood the same to be the top of a hill. Further, if the sround is read as a whole it becomes clear that the too No. II is a particular worksite. From the expression 'above worksite' used subsequently it is clear that 'the top of No. II' is merely a reference to a particular worksite. So far as the expression 'iungle' is concerned we do not find any section of any vagueness. In our opinion it was not necessary to specify any particular muffle. It is to be understood that it was in a Tea Estate area and therefore the question of giving any more particular regarding jungle cannot arise. Regarding the submission of Mr. Chatteriee in respect of auotins of sections of the Indian Penal Code, we are of the opinion that the same are not vague. The substance of the allegations have been siven after the sections were Quoted. Moreover whether the action complained of amounts to an offence under the Indian Penal Code or not is auite immaterial. It cannot be urged that only where the grounds of detention are based on facts which can be held to amount to an offence for which he could be punished, that a person could be detained under a law of preventive detention. (Gvani Baksish Singh v. Government of India. : 1973CriLJ1801 . As it is apparent from the grounds, the order of detention has been made and subjective satisfaction reached on the basis of the action of the detenu and not because it amounted than offence under the Indian Penal Code. This is made clear by the expression 'which comes within the mischief of'. The charee against the detenu is that in consequence of the activity of the detenu and his associates, nublic order was disturbed and incidentally it was mentioned that the same also came within the mischief of several sections of Indian Penal Code. In our opinion there is no vagueness at all because sufficient particulars have been given. In any event, in our opinion, the same are secondary inessential and consequential in nature. Incidentally it may be mentioned that in the detailed representation made by the detenu the detenu did not make any complaint that the grounds -suffered from, vagueness or that the detenu did not fully or clearly understand the implication of the same or that for such alleged vaeueness he could not make any effective representation.