KEHO BAM HAZARIKA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 491, Criminal P.C., from a security prisoner from Nowgong Jail. The order of detention was passed by the Government of Asaam on 3 -10 -1919 under Sections (1)(a), Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, as amended. The order directed that the petitioner shall be detained for a period of six months with effect from 7 -10 -1949. A copy of the grounds of detention was sent to the petitioner along with the order and he was informed that he was at liberty to make a representation against the order of detention. He was further informed that his representation should reach the Government; not later than 30 -10 -1949. The grounds of detention were as follows:

(2.) UNDER Section 2, the Provincial Government if satisfied, that it is necessary with a view to preventing an individual from acting in any manner prejudicial to public safety and the maintenance of public order, may order him to be detained. The intention of the Legislature is clear. It is the detaining authority that must be satisfied that detention of an individual is necessary in order that no act prejudicial to public safety and maintenance of public order is committed. The satisfaction contemplated by the section is satisfaction in point of fact. In the words of the learned Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court in Durga Das v. Rex A.I. R. (36) 1949 ALL. 148, at p. 166 : 50 Cr.L, J. 214 F.B. 'satisfaction' only means that the detaining authority 'must be in fact satisfied', or, in other words, 'honestly satisfied'. The reasonableness or otherwise of the satisfaction which forms the basis of the action of the detaining authority is not open to question in any Court.

(3.) THE first ground was that the petitioner being, an active member of the Students' Federation, Nowgong, under the influence of the C. P, I., has been acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and the maintenance of public order. The petitioner has pointed out that being an active member of the Students' Federation under the influence of the Communist Party of India by itself would not be a valid ground for detention. To this extent the contention may be right. But what was said in this ground is that he has been acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and the maintenance of public order. This is a statement of fact and if the Government felt satisfied that he had been acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety, etc, it would be a valid ground for detention.