SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE had heard this petition in full on 26.11.2014 and had also communicated our order of allowing the petition reserving the reasons to be expressed by us on that day.

(2.) WE subsequently found out that we were misled in allowing the petition in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cherukuri Mani v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in : 2014 (3) PLJR 280 which Sri Bindhyachal Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before us, which had interpreted Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 ('the Andhra Act' in short) which appears quite in pari materia with Section 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 ('the Bihar Act' in short) except that in the Andhra Act the word 'Police Commissioner' also appears in Section 3. While We were hearing another petition the next day, Sri Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State brought into our notice : 1985 PLJR 763 (Bhim Singh v. The State of Bihar) which had elaborated upon the scope and ambit of Section 12 of the Bihar Act and had thereupon held that section 12 was containing a provision of delegation of its power by the State Government of passing the preventive detention order against a person to the District Magistrate of a particular district and that order was to survive only for three months if the same was not extended for further periods not exceeding three months by the State Government on being satisfied about the necessity of extending the same. Thus, what appeared was that the Division Bench of this Court was laying down the correct law and that was not placed before us by the counsel appearing for the petitioner which led us to pass an absolutely erroneous order. We after coming across the fallacy we had fallen into, record our order dated 10.12.2014 which runs as follows: - -

(3.) SRI Bindhyachal Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner who had not placed : 1985 PLJR 763 (Bhim Singh v. The State of Bihar) was attempting to convince us that the petition was still fully covered by the Supreme Court decision in Cherukuri Mani (supra), but we found the contention not acceptable inasmuch as the Division Bench of the Court in Bhim Singh (supra) was laying down the correct law by appropriately considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Bihar Act and, as such, we were bound by that decision of the Court to follow it if we were not going to take a view different from that taken by the Court in Bhim Singh (supra). Sometimes a counsel from whom the expectations, both of the Bench and Bar, are very high also indulge in concealing the appropriate law or fact for placing a wrong and untenable proposition so as to obtaining an erroneous order. It hurts the system of justicing more than the judges who fall prey to such concealments of law and facts. It appears a case of that category and worries us.