PRATUL CHANDRA MITRA Vs. COMMANDANT, HIJLI DETENTION CAMP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are called upon to consider certain action of the executive taken in pursuance of Section 2, Act 6 of 1930. Mr. Chaudhury pressed us not to allow our decision to be influenced by the fact that in one event the executive might be embarrassed. His apprehension was and remains groundless. We are not concerned with the necessities either of the executive or of the subject. We are concerned only to weigh the legal rights of the subject against the legal rights of the executive. I am prepared further to assume that the exercise of powers under emergency legislation in spite of every precaution is likely in certain cases to produce hardship. This may or may not be such a case. This Court, however, does not remedy injustice in the abstract. We are here to enforce legal rights and to remedy legal wrongs. It will, I think, be convenient first to summarize the facts in order of date. I will state first the actual facts, either established or conceded, and then the inferences which Mr. Chaudhury has asked us to draw, and upon which he has based his case.

(2.) The actual facts are as follows: The petitioner is a shop-keeper at Ranchi. On 15th February 1933, he was arrested without a warrant at Ranchi in pursuance of a letter dated 13 February 1933, merely stating that his arrest was required in connexion with a conspiracy case in Calcutta. On 16 February he was brought to Calcutta and remained under police custody. On 3 March 1933 he was sent to Alipore Jail. On 3 March 1933 an application by him for bail before the Chief Presidency Magistrate was refused. The case was fixed for 9 March and it is said without notice to the petitioner's lawyers, he was discharged on 4 March. On the same day or a day later he was sent up before the Additional District Magistrate of Alipore and an application for bail was made to that Magistrate and was again refused. On 1 April 1933 he was discharged. He was then arrested under Section 4(1), Act 6 of 1930 and was committed to jail under an order which is Ex. A to the affidavit in opposition. The period of his custody was extended under orders which are also exhibited. On 9 May 1933 the order under Section 2 of the Act (the main object of attack in this case) was issued over the signature of the Officiating Additional Secretary to the Government of Bengal. That order is Ex. D. On 12 June there was a supplementary order (Ex. E) transferring the petitioner to Hijli. He was, in fact, removed on 7 July 1933. On 8 July 1933 took place the incident at Alipore Jail which has been referred to by my learned brother. On 10 July 1933 an application on behalf of the petitioner was made by his father. This is miscellaneous case No. 113 of 1933. It was headed: In the matter of Section 491, Criminal P. 0., and in the matter of a writ of habeas corpus.

(3.) A rule was issued and the matter was heared on 28 August 1933 by C. C. Ghose, and Henderson JJ., who dismissed the application. The judgment is before us and has been relied on by the Crown. On 29 August 1933 the present petition was filed by the detenue himself and is miscellaneous case No. 137 of 1933. The allegations contained in the petition are almost identical, with a significant addition to para. 18 to which I shall refer again. There is, however, a difference as regards the reliefs claimed and a Rule was issued in the following form: first, to show cause why the petitioner should not be released; second, to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued; and third, to show cause why an inquiry should not be made whether an offence under Section 124(1), Government of India Act, had been committed. On the foundation of the actual facts above stated Mr. Chaudhury has built a superstructure of inferences. Mr. Chaudhury points first to the arrest at Ranchi and he contends, [relying upon the case of Subodh Chandra V/s. Emperor that the arrest was in itself illegal. He relies further upon events in Calcutta and Alipore especially the successive remands, the refusal of the applications for bail, and the fact that his client was twice discharged. Finally, he relies upon the incident at Alipore Jail on 8 July 1933. He contends that from these facts it should be inferred, first that the police, in particular the Intelligence Branch, were the real movers in the matter from beginning to end; secondly, that the Intelligence Branch was actuated throughout by some wrong motive or malice; thirdly, that the whole series of events is to be regarded as a single transaction tainted throughout with the malice in question; and, lastly, that this Court should infer that full and fair information was not put before the authorities who under the Act in question are charged with the duty of scrutinizing the case of the detenue. He goes so far as to suggest the possibility of the Intelligence Branch being itself misled by inaccurate information supplied by informers.