RATANLAL GUPTA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF GANJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications raise almost identical questions for consideration & are accordingly deals with by this common judgment. The petitioner in cri. Misc. case No. 36/51 is one Ratanlal Gupta & in Cri. Misc. No. 37/51 is one Aska Ram Somani.

(2.) These two petitioners were arrested at about 3 A. m. early morning of 16-3- 51 at Berham-pur. This arrest was consequent upon investigation which followed a report received by the Sub-Inspector of Govt. Railway Police from the Sub Inapector, Town Police. The petitioners were produced on the 16th itself before the Sub Divisional Magistrate under police custody with a forwarding report that they were found smuggling 1467 yards of cloth from Berhampur at the railway station & are believed to have committed an offence under Section 7 of Act XXIV [24] of 1946. They were remanded to custody till 28-3-51. Meanwhile on 17-3-61 the petitioners moved for bail. This was opposed on the ground that the offence was presumed to relate the blackmarketing, that the sections were non-bailable, that there was a move for their detention under the Preventive Detention Act, & that the petitionera belong to Calcutta & may abscond or tamper with the evidence & their being released on bail would be very detrimental to investigation & that accordingly the bail was strongly objected to at that stage. The learned Sab-divisional Magistrate, however, made an order for release of the petitionera on bail of Rs. 20,000 each with two local sureties for similar sums & also imposed a condition that the petitioners should not move out of Berhampur town police station limits. Against this order, the petitioners moved the learned Ses. J. who passed an order on the 19th modifying the order passed by the S. D. O. He directed that the amount of bail should not move out of Berhampur town police station limits should be cancelled. Sureties were accordingly furnished on the 20th & the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate being satisfied about the same, issued on the same day an order for the release of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that when this order of release by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 20th waa taken to the Jailor of the Berhampur District Jail, where the petitioners were lodged, the Jailor refused to release them stating that he received orders from the District Magistrate, Ganjam, for the detention of the petitioners under the Preventive Detention Act for the three months from 19-3- 51 to 18-6-51. These petitioners came up to this Court at that stage with an application each dated 27-3 51 alleging that no copy of the detention orders was served on them, though their signatures were taken on a paper purporting to be detention orders & that no grounds of detention were served on them as required by law & that they were not aware of having done any prejudicial act or having committed any offence. We admitted these applicationa on the 29th March & issued notice calling upon the Advocate General to supply copies of the orders of detention and the grounds therefor. Meanwhile, the grounds of detention appear to have been served on the petitioners in the District Jail, Berhampur, on 27-3-51. Thereafter on 9-4-51 the petitioners filed fresh applications challenging the grounds onthe following grounds amongst others:

(3.) From the papers filed before us on behalf of the State, it would appear that the Circle Inspector of Berhampur, moved the District Magistrate of Ganjam, for the detention of these two persons for three months by a letter addressed to him dated 16-3-51 stating therein inter alia as follows: