MADHAB CH CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a habeas corpus application. The petitioner was detained, under order of the District Magistrate, Kamrup made under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, "for preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order". The detenu was detained on (illegible) and on the same date the grounds of detention were served on him. He made representation to the Government which was rejected. His case was heard by the learned Advisory Board. Acting on the opinion of the learned Advisory Board, the Government confirmed the order of detention on 14 -6 -81.

(2.) THE allegations against the petitioner as revealed in the grounds of detention may be summarised as follows : (1) That he was, at all relevant periods, an active supporter of ASSU and AAGSP and a Member of the Anchalik Karmachari Parishad, (2) That he had been injured while "experimenting with a homemade cartridge in a country -made gun"; (3) That he was engaged in the activities like collection of bombs, manufacturing and procuring of guns etc. Insofar as this item is concerned, a series of instances have been cited giving specific dates. It is alleged that on the 30th Nov. 1980 he went to Barpeta and brought arms and explosives, again on the 6th Dec., 1980 he asked one Shri Bashya to bring some arms and explosive's made a plan to hand over one country -made gun and bombs to one Rahman around 8 -30 p.m. but he was caught red -handed by the police.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the detenu submits that the first ground, to wit : That the petitioner was a member of "the Organisations" cannot be a ground for detention. The learned counsel submits that the Government itself is discussing with ASSU and AAGSP for solution of the problems arising out of Foreigners' issue and as such the said ground of detention is irrelevant. The Organisations have not been declared illegal or unlawful. Secondly, the learned counsel submits that there is absolutely no date or materials furnished to the detenu as to when and where the detenu was injured while "experimenting with home -made cartridges in a country -made gun". The ground is hopelessly vague and no effective representation could be made by the detenu in consequence whereof he was denied of his statutory -cum -constitutional rights. Insofar as the third ground is concerned, the learned counsel submits that even if the entire allegations are accepted at their face value, the acts or activities did not cross the perimeter of 'law and order' to enter within the narrower concentric circle of "public order". Counsel relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 814 : (1970 Cri LJ 843) Sudhir Kr. Saha; AIR 1971 SC 2486 : (1971 Cri LJ 1720) Madhu Limaye; AIR 1966 SC 740 : (1966 Cri LJ 608) Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia; AIR 1970 SC 1228 : (1970 Cri LJ 1136) Arun Kumar Ghose and AIR 1972 SC 2686 Dipak Bose v. Govt. of West Bengal. We find sufficient force in the contentions. We extract the grounds of detention : Grounds of detention of Shri Madhab Chakravarty S/o Sri Haldharma Chakravarty of village Janigog, P.S. Nalbari, District Kamrup. That you are an active supporter of ASSU and AAGSP and a member of the Anchalik Karmachari Parishad and that you had been injured while experimenting with a home -made cartridge in a country -made gun and that you have been engaged in the activities like collection of bombs, manufacturing and procuring of guns etc." On 30 -11 -80 you went to Barpeta along with Shri Nao Ram Baishya in a motor cycle with a view to procure some bombs. On the 3rd day Nao Ram Baishya, who stayed there, came back to your house and handed over to you two bombs and six 'hawi bombs' on 6 -12 -80 you again sent Shri Baishya to bring 5 more bombs. You have made a plan to hand over one country -made gun and those bombs to one Rahman on 6 -12 -80 at 8 -30 P.M. But you were caught red -handed by the police. You have therefore acted and are likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. You may submit representation to the State Government against the order of detention through the Superintendent of District Jail, in which you are detained, if you so desire." (Emphasis added).