HARADHAN SAHA & Anr. v. THE STATE OF. WEST BENGAL & Ors.

Judgment

778 HARADHAN SAHA & ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF. WEST BENGAL & ORS. August 21, 1974 [A. N. RAY, ci.,.P. JAGANMoHAN REDDY, K. K. MArnEw, M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGfRISWAMI, JJ.] Maintenance of Internal Security A.ct, 1971 (A.ct 26 of l911)-Con.s1iJu- 1io11al validity-Act whetMr violative of Artic:le 141 19, 21 a,.J 22-H«td, 1he Act does not ·suOer from any constitutional infirn1lty. The petitioncr!i were .detained under the Act· for,· acting in a manner pre In. the one case, judicial to the maintenance of supplies and !Crvices e~sential ·to the com· munitY. the ground of· detention was that the petitioner in cotl~ion with his father had hoarded· foodgrains,· that he :Jiad no licence ;,t! required· by the anti-hoarding control Order and that he wits likely to with hold or impede supply of foodstuffs or rationed articles essential to the_ com the grounds were that the petitioner and his munity. _ In the other case, lbsociates had smugg]ed.

115 bags of rice covered by coal by engaging lorry ~'ithout any valid permit or authority· and in violatlo:rl' of control order and tried to frustiate the food and procurement policy .of the Govt. and thus acted in a manrier prejudicial ·to the inaintenance of supplies and services ~ntial to the community. The petitioners challenged the-respective orders of detention _as havin2 ·been made for a collateral purpose and contended that the Act was violative of Articles 14. 19 •. 21 and 22 of the Constitution of Jadia. Dismissing the Writ petitions. HELO : ( 1) Article 14 is inapplicable becaUSe preventive detentioD. and prosecution are not synonymous. The purposes are different. The authori· ties are different.

The nature of proceedings _is . different. prosecu tion an accused is sought to be punished for a past .let. In preventive deten tio~ . the past act is . merely the material for inference about the future conrse of probable conduct on too pan of the detenu. [787HJ In . a The principles wh~ can be broadly stat.ed are these. First. merely because a detenu is liable to be tried in a criminal colUt for the ·commission ot a criminal o.ffence or to be proceeded against for preventing him from ·committing offences dealt. with in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Proce hi~ deten- dure would not by itself debar the Govt. from ~ak.ing actio!l for - _. tion under the Act. Second, the fact that Police arrests a _person and later on enlarges him on bail and. initiates steps to prosecute him under the Code of Criminal· Procedure and even lodges a first information report. may be no bar against the District Magistrate issuinit an order. under the preventive de tention.

Third, Where- the concerned person is actually in jail custody· at the time when .an order of detention is passed: against him and is not Jil:ely it may be possible to contend that to be released for a ·fair tength of time. there ·could l:e Do satisfaction on the ·part of the detaining ·authority as to the likelihood of such a person· indulging in activities which \vonld jeopar'.' the mere circum- · dise the security of the State or public order. Fourth, stance that a detention order is pas~ed during the pendency of the pro5ecu- rion ·wilt not violate the order. Fifth, the order of detention is a precau· It is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future . behe- tionay measure. \'K>ur of a person based on his past conduct in the light of the surrounding circwn•tances. [788B-FJ A n c D E F G H a.

SA8A v. WEST BENGAL (Ray, C.J.) 779