BANWARILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE detention of the petitioner under Section 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) ordered by the District Magistrate, Ganganagar on 30th of May, 1974, has been challenged before us, inter alia, on three grounds, viz. (1) that the grounds supplied to the petitioner by the District Magistrate do not disclose the satisfaction of the detaining authority, (2) that the prosecution of the petitioner for the acts which formed the ground for detention vitiates the impugned order, and (3) that the order passed by the detaining authority is mala fide.

(2.) THE petitioner was served with the grounds of detention by the District Magistrate on 1st of June, 1974, which contained that the petitioner, who was carrying on business of a Kirana merchant in Hanumangarh town, was convicted by the Magistrate First Class, Hanumangarh, in case No. 294/1968 on 3rd of December, 1973 for selling adulterated vinegar (Sirka) and that the sample of 'dhania' taken from the petitioner's shop under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was found to be adulterated by the Chemical Analyst and on that account prosecution was launched against the petitioner in a competent court for which case No. 1715 of 1974 under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act has been registered in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh and that the sample of the tea leaves taken from the shop of the petitioner did not conform to the prescribed standard as was apparent from the report of the public analyst. On account of these actions of the petitioner, the learned District Magistrate, Ganganagar, recorded his satisfaction that it was necessary with a view to preventing Shri Banwarilal from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community to detain him. In pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate dated 30th of May. 1974, the petitioner was detained under the provisions of the said Act.

(3.) THE challenge thrown to the validity of the impugned order by the petitioner on the grounds mentioned above may be considered by us one by one.