Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1973 DIGILAW 160 (CAL)

Bisandeo Sarma v. State of West Bengal

1973-05-30

ARUN KUMAR JANAH, SANKAR PRASAD MITRA

body1973
JUDGMENT Mitra, C.J., This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Salil Kumar Dutta refusing to grant an ad-interim order of stay of an order of detention passed on the petitioner on the 5th October 1971, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. From the records, it appears that in support of the order of detention five separate grounds were advanced. We propose briefly to deal with these grounds separately. 2. The first ground is that on 11.11.1970 on the basis of secret information, various articles belonging to the railway were recovered by the Police from the petitioner's godown at Nimpura in Kharagpur. The petitioner, it is alleged, could neither produce any receipt, nor could account for the possession of these properties. 3. The goods were seized on the 11th. November, 1970. But the order of detention was not passed till the 5th. October, 1971. Moreover a Criminal case under sections 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted. This is case No. N.G.R. 33(S) of 1971 in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Midnapore. In this case, the appellant was one of the accused. The appellant surrendered in court and was released on bail in the sum of Rs. 200/-. The Criminal Case is still pending. A Seizure List was a drawn up in connection with this case. 4. The second ground is that on 24.3.1971 again on the basis of secret information, the Police recovered from the appellant's godown certain other goods belonging to the Railway. The appellant and his associates fled away from the godown at the sight of the Police. The goods could not be accounted for and no receipt could be produced. 5. This ground also relates to another criminal case, being Case No. N.G.R. 223 (S) of 1971 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Midnapore (South). The appellant was not even made an accused in this case. A seizure list was prepared. The case was ultimately dropped by the Magistrate by his order dated the 13th July, 1972, and Alamat was directed to be returned. 6. The third ground is that on 9.4.71 the police on secret information recovered certain other goods belonging to the railway at the time of unloading the same from appellant's Truck No. WGC, 1783 and taking the same to the appellant's godown at Nimpura. The goods could not be accounted for. 6. The third ground is that on 9.4.71 the police on secret information recovered certain other goods belonging to the railway at the time of unloading the same from appellant's Truck No. WGC, 1783 and taking the same to the appellant's godown at Nimpura. The goods could not be accounted for. No receipt could be shown. 7. This ground is also the subject matter of a criminal case, being case No. N.G.R. 72(S) of 1971 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Midnapore (Sadar). The appellant was made an accused under section 4 of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act. He surrendered in court and was released on bail in the sum of Rs. 100/-. A seizure list was prepared in this case also. The case is still pending. 8. The fourth ground is that on the 16th April, 1971, various articles belonging to the South Eastern Railway Workshop were seized by the police on secret information at the time of loading into the appellants Truck No. WBK 8020. The goods could not be accounted for. No receipt could be produced. 9. This ground relates to a criminal case, being case No. N.G.R 73(S) of 1971 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Midnapore, Sadar (South). The appellant was made an accused in the case under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 139/140 of the Indian Penal Code. He surrendered in court and was released on bail in the sum of Rs. 400/-. A seizure list was also prepared in this case. The Truck No. WBK. 8020), which was alleged to belong to the appellant was registered in the name of M/s. Prabhunath Rajendra Kumar of 120A Manicktola Main Road, Calcutta–54 of which Fekuram Shaw was the proprietor. The Magistrate directed that the truck here turned to Fekuram Shaw by his order dated the 6th May, 1971. 10. The fifth and the last ground is that on the 8th August, 1971, the Police on secret information seized the Truck No. WGC. 1783 with certain goods at the time of loading them from the appellant's godown at Kharida into the aforesaid truck. A case was instituted in this connection, being criminal case No. N.G.R 159(S) of 1971 in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Midnapore. The appellant was not made an accused in this case. 1783 with certain goods at the time of loading them from the appellant's godown at Kharida into the aforesaid truck. A case was instituted in this connection, being criminal case No. N.G.R 159(S) of 1971 in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Midnapore. The appellant was not made an accused in this case. On the written recommendation of the Police, the Magistrate by his order dated 18th August, 1971 directed some of the goods to be returned to Ramraj Prasad from whom the goods were seized. There was also a seizure list in this case. By another order dated the 29th June, 1972, the Magistrate dropped the case on a finding that there was no prima facie case against the accused Ramraj Prasad and all the seized article were directed to be returned to the accused. 11. The position, therefore, is that the detention order is based on five grounds. With regard to three of the grounds, criminal cases have been launched against the accused and these cases are pending. With respect to two other grounds, also there are criminal cases but the appellant is not an accused. It would not be proper for us at this stage to express any opinion on the legality or validity of the order of detention, no do we propose to do so. We would merely point out that the Supreme Court in (1) Mintu Bhakta, v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2132 has stated that one of the grounds fur detention being factually baseless the whole order must fail; because it was impossible to predicate upon which of the grounds the detaining authority had reached its satisfaction or whether it reached satisfaction irrespective of or without the ground which failed. 12. We are, therefore, of opinion that the order of detention in the instant case has to be examined by this court in the Writ application in order to determine whether it has been legally and validly made. The court must be satisfied that the impugned order was not made for collateral reasons, vide (2) Judgment of the Supreme Court in Writ petitions Nos. 403, and 470 of 1969 (Dip Chand Sharma v. State of West Bengal). And pending the said determination by this court the order of detention should remain stayed. The court must be satisfied that the impugned order was not made for collateral reasons, vide (2) Judgment of the Supreme Court in Writ petitions Nos. 403, and 470 of 1969 (Dip Chand Sharma v. State of West Bengal). And pending the said determination by this court the order of detention should remain stayed. But we do not intend to make an order for unconditional stay on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. The order for detention shall be stayed on the following conditions ; (1) The Appellant will either deposit with the Registrar, Appellate Side, of this Court a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) within a week from date or furnish a bank guarantee for the said sum to the Registrar within the said period. This sum of Rs. 25,000 shall be held by the Registrar until further orders by this Court. (2) The appellant will report to the Officer-in-Charge of Kharagpur Town Police Station on Mondays and Fridays every week. (3) The appellant shall not leave Kharagpur Town without informing the said Officer-in-Charge and would report to him immediately on his return to the town. (4) If the appellant fails to comply with any of the conditions aforesaid the stay order granted by us would immediately stand vacated. Otherwise the stay order shall, remain in force until the disposal of the writ application. 13. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Let this order be communicated at the cost of the appellant to (1) the District Magistrate, Midnapore, (2) the State of West Bengal, through the Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal, Writers Building Calcutta–1, and (3) Officer-in-Charge, Kharagpur Town, Police Station. Janah, J. : I agree.