KALYANMAL AGARWALLA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MIDNAPORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus against the detention of Kalyanmal Agarwalla under Sub-section(2) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act 1950.

(2.) It appears that the detenu Kalyanmal Agarwalla is being detained on the basis of an order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Midnapore, on February 29, 1968, under Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.

(3.) Mr. Mukherji first argues that no copy of the detention order was served on the detenu and as such the detention order should be struck down. It has been stated in the application that no copy of the detention order was served on the detenu when the detenu was taken into custody. The District Magistrate has in his affidavit said that copy of the detention order was served on the detenu when he was taken into custody. The District Magistrate has said this in his affidavit from information derived from the records in respect of this detenu. We do not however, find any affidavit from the Officer who actually served the copy on the detenu. Be that as it may, even if we assume that the copy of the order was not served on the detenu that, in our opinion, is no ground for striking down the order of detention. There is no specific provision in the Preventive Detention Act requiring service of copy of the order of detention on the detenu. Section 7 requires service of copy of the grounds for which the detenu has been detained. Mr. Mukherji refers to Section 3A of the Act and submits that the detention order is to be executed in the manner provided for execution of warrant of arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure. True, but the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require that copy of the warrant of arrest has to be served on the person to be arrested and so we are not prepared to strike down the order of detention on the ground that copy of the detention order was not served on the detenu at the time when he was taken into custody. We read the decision of the Supreme Court in Naresh v. State of West Bengal, as requiring that the grounds should be accompanied by a preamble containing recitals in terms of one or more of the Sub-clause (a) and (b) of Section 3 (1). In the instant case there is such a preamble to the grounds which were furnished to the detenu and that preamble recites that the detenu has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.