http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: NARAYAN DEBNATH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/09/1974

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1976 AIR  780            1976 SCR  (2) 780  1975 SCC  (4) 508

ACT: Maintenance  of Internal Security Act, 1971, s. 3.-Scope  of inquiry by Court in a petition challenging detention-- Armed robbery in running train-If affects public order.

HEADNOTE: The  petitioner  was  detained under s.  3,  Maintenance  of Internal  Security  Act, 1971, on the sole  ground  that  on 16-2-1973  at about 10 p.m. he, along with  his  associates, being  armed with guns and other weapons, committed  dacoity in  a  third  class compartment of a running  train.   In  a petition  challenging  the  detention  order  the   District Magistrate stated in his counter affidavit that he based his subjective satisfaction only on the ground mentioned in  the detention order although other materials were placed  before him.   The  Court  therefore. examined the  record  and  the history  sheet  of  the  detenu  and  held,  dismissing  the petition, that. (1)  The  ground on which the detention order had been  made would  reasonably give rise to a bona fide  satisfaction  in the mind of the detaining authority that such incidents were likely to be repeated in the same manner and that those  who were alleged to have taken part in even a single incident of such  magnitude had to _be detained in order that the  tempo of  peace  in public life was not  jeopardised.   A  careful examination  of  the record and the  history  sheet  showed, having  regard to the grave nature of the act  committed  by the  detenu,  that  the  District  Magistrate  was  bonafide satisfied  that the said Act was sufficient for  making  the detention order. [58F-G; 60A-B] (2)  It  could not be contended unless the facts  stated  in the grounds are proved to the satisfaction of the Court,  no action  can be taken under the Act.  It is because that  the act complained of cannot be satisfactorily proved in a Court of  law or that the witnesses are unwilling to come  forward being   already  terrified  by  the  enormity  of  the   act perpetrated  that  action has to be taken under the  Act  to prevent  further commission of offenses of  similar  nature. [58G-H] Besides,  the scope of inquiry in a case of this  nature  is very  limited.   The Court has to assume the grounds  to  be true  and  it is not its function to examine  the  truth  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

otherwise  of  the  allegations mentioned  in  the  grounds. [58H], (3)  It  could not also be contended that the matter  merely affects  law and order but not public order.  When an  armed robbery or dacoity is alleged to have been committed by  the petitioner armed with guns and with his associates similarly armed, in a running train, it no longer remains a matter  of simple  law and order as the peaceful tempo of life  of  the community  at large is also affected thereby.  It  not  only puts the passengers from various Places and walks of life in the particular third class compartment in fear, but puts the passengers  of  the entire train and even of  other  running trains in panic.  Public order and life of the community  is thereby  clearly  disturbed  and  that  amounts  to   public disorder which had to be prevented by action under the  Act. [59A-D] Subal  Chandra  Ghosh v. State of West Bengal,  A.I.R.  1972 S.C.  P. 2146, Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal  [1970]  3 S.C.R, 288, Ram Manohar Lohials case in [1966] 1 S.C.R. 709. followed.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 305 of 1974. Petition under ArtiCle 32 of the Constitution of India. G. Narayana Rao, for the petitioner. Sumitra  Chakravarty, G. S. Chatterjee and S. K.  Basu,  for the respondent. 58 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI  J.-The  petitioner has been detained u/s 3  of  the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (briefly the Act) (in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.  The order was passed by the  District Magistrate Nadia, on 11-4-73.  The  ground  on which the order was founded is as follows :-               1.    "That on 16-2-73 in between 10.08  hours               and  10.14  hours you along  with  your  other               associates  being  armed with  gun  and  other               weapons  committed  a decoity in a  3rd  class               compartment  of  running  train  S.  110   Dn.               between  Habibpur  R.  S.  and  Lakinarayanpur               junction  R.S. in Ranaghat  Shantipur  section               and  snatched away cash of Rs.  30,0,00/  from               Shri  Ashutosh Pal of Calcutta causing  bullet               injuries to him and putting all passengers  to               fear of death.               Your   action  caused  confusion,  panic   and               disturbed public order there.               You have thus acted in a manner prejudicial to               the maintenance of public order." The   order   was  served  upon  the  detenu  who   made   a representation;  which was considered by the Government  and rejected.   We have been taken through the time schedule  of various orders passed by the different authorities and we do not  find  any illegality in that behalf.  As  a  matter  of fact,  the learned advocate, Mr. Narayana Rao, appearing  as amicus curiae for the petitioner, has not raised any  ground of illegality in that connection. Since,  however,  the District Magistrate in  his  affidavit (Paragraph  6)  has  stated that  be  based  his  subjective satisfaction  only on the ground mentioned in the  detention order  although other materials were placed before  him,  we examined  the  records of the case history  of  the  detenu.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

After  a careful examination of the record and  the  history sheet,  we find that the District Magistrate, having  regard to the grave nature of the act committed by the detenu,  was bona  fide  satisfied that the said act was  sufficient  for making,  the  detention order.  Mr. Narayana  Rao,  however, submits  that  unless  the facts stated in  the  ground  are proved  to the satisfaction of this Court, no action can  be taken under the Act.  We are unable, to accede to this  sub- mission.   It is because that the act complained  of  cannot perhaps  be satisfactorily proved in a court of law or  that the  witnesses are unwilling to come forward  being  already terrified by the enormity of the act perpetrated that action sometimes  has to be taken under the Act to prevent  further commission  of offenses of similar nature.  Besides,  it  is not  the  function  of the Court to  examine  the  truth  or otherwise of the allegations mentioned in the grounds.   The grounds are assumed ’by the Court to be true and it is  well settled  that the scope of inquiry in a case of this  nature is very limited. 59 The learned counsel next contends that this is at the  worst a matter affecting law and order but not public order.We are unable     to  accept  this submission.  When  an  armed robberyor dacoity like this is alleged to be committed by the petitioner armed with guns with his associates similarly armed, in a running train, it nolonger  remains a  matter of simple law and order as the peaceful tempo in life of the community  at large is also affected thereby.  It  not  only puts the passengers from various places and walks of life in the  particular.  third class compartment in  fear  but  the passengers  of  the entire train and even of  other  running trains in panic.  Public-order and life of the community  is hereby  clearly disturbed.  That amounts to public  disorder which has to be prevented by action under the Act.  Besides, the  news of this type of daring dacoity in a running  train is even likely to prevent the traveling public from availing of  communication by train.  Such consequences  and  effects are  bound to affect public order which is the  opposite  of public disorder.  If any authority is needed  we have one in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. p. 2146 (Subal Chanadr’a Ghosh v. State  of West  Bengal)  wherein  one of  us  (Jaganmohan  Reddy,  J.) observed as follows               "The  facts  set out in ground No.  1  clearly               show  that  the offence  alleged  against  him               (detenu)  is committed in a daring  manner  in               the  presence  of passengers which  must  been               very panicky and disturbed the public order." Again  in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal(1)  this  Court dealing  with  the  question of  public  order  observed  as follows               "The question whether a man has only committed               a  breach of law and order, or has acted in  a               manner  likely to cause a disturbance  of  the               public order, is a question of degree and  the               extent  of the reach of the act upon  society.               The test is : Does it lead to a disturbance of               the  even  tempo and current of  life  of  the               community so as to amount to a disturbance  of               the public order, or, does it affect merely               an    individual   without    affecting    the               tranquility of society." In yet another decision of this Court in Ram Manohar Lohia’s case 2  ) Hidayatullah J. as he then was, speaking  for  the majority, put in a  picturesque  language the whole  concept of public order thus

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

             "It  will  thus appear that just  ’as  "public               order"  in the rulings of this Court was  said               to  comprehend disorders of less gravity  than               those affecting "security of State", "law  and               order"  also  comprehends  disorders  of  less               gravity  than those affecting "public  order".               One  has to imagine three concentric  circles.               Law  and order represents the  largest  circle               within  which is the next circle  representing               public   order   and   the   smallest   circle               represents security of State.  It is then easy               to  see that- an act may affect  public  order               but not security of the State."                (1) [1970] 3 S. C. R. 288.                (2) [1966] 1 S. C. R. 709.               60 We  are  clearly of the view that the ground  on  which  the detention order has been made in this case would  reasonably give  rise  to a bonafide satisfaction in the  mind  of  the detaining  authority that such incidents were likely  to  be repeated  in the same manner and that those who are  alleged to  have  taken  part  in even a  single  incident  of  this magnitude  had  to be detained in order that  the  tempo  of peace  in  public  life  was  not  jeopardised.   We   have, therefore,  no  hesitation  in  holding  that  there  is  no infirmity in the impugned order.  The petition fails and  is dismissed.  The rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. V.P.S. 61