http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: BIRAM CHAND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/03/1974

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. KHANNA, HANS RAJ

CITATION:  1974 AIR 1161            1974 SCR  (3) 813  1974 SCC  (4) 573  CITATOR INFO :  O          1974 SC2154  (34)  F          1975 SC 134  (6)

ACT: Maintenance  of  Internal Security Act, 1971 S.  3  (1)  (a) (iii)--Detention  when  prosecution is pending on  the  same facts--Validity.

HEADNOTE: The  petitioner  was detained by an order  of  the  District Magistrate, Varanasi, U.P. under Sec. 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance  of Internal Security Act, 1971, with a view  to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to  the maintenance  of  supplies  and  services  essential  to  the community. On  the  questions,  whether,  when  some  of  the   grounds furnished by the detaining authority form the subject-matter of  trial in criminal cases which are still sub-judice,  the detention would be valid, and whether the detenu can be said to  be reasonably able to make an  effective  representation against those grounds : HELD  : (a) In the case of preventive detention the  grounds must  be clear and definite to enable the detenu to  make  a real  and  effective  representation to  the  Government  to establish his innocence. [818 C] (b)  Being  faced  with a criminal prosecution  in  a  trial which is pending against him,  although, the detenu has  not got a proper and reasonable opportunity in   accordance with law to make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention covered by the said proceeding,  because, by disclosing  his  defence and certain facts lie  would  be handicapped in defending himself in     the criminal  court. [818 B-D] (c)  On  the  question whether it is open to  the  detaining authority  to  choose two parallel proceedings  against  the detenu held that the fact that the ground of detention could be a subject matter of criminal prosecution is I not  enough to vitiate a detention order if the detaining authority does not  choose  to prosecute him but only passes  an  order  of detention  in  accordance  with  law.   The  choice  of  the authority  concerned  for the mode of tackling  the  illegal activity cannot per se be illegal and the order of detention

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

is to be judged on its merits.  The position however will be entirely different if the authority concerned makes an order of  detention  tinder the Act and also prosecutes him  in  a criminal  case  on  the  self-same  facts.   The   detaining authority   cannot  take  recourse  to  two   parallel   and simultaneous  proceeding nor can take recourse to  a  ground which is the subject matter of a criminal trial. [818 D-G] (d)  Under  the  Act.  the decision of  the  authorities  is subjective one and if one of the grounds is non-existent  or irrelevant  or  is not available under the  law  the  entire detention  order  will  fall since it  is  not  possible  to predicate  as to whether the detaining authority would  have made  an order of detention even in the absence of the  non- existent or irrelevant ground [819 C-E] (e)  Although  the aim and object of the order of  detention would  be  laudable  and  the antecedents  of  a  detenu  be extremely  reproachable, yet, it is essential that if it  is desired  to detain a person without trial,  the  authorities concerned  should  conform to the requirements of  the  law. The  shady  antecedents  of  the  detenu  cannot  provide  a Justification   for   noncompliance   with   the   mandatory provisions.   The  scope  of  the inquiry  in  the  case  of preventive  detention  based  upon  subjective  satisfaction being  necessarily narrow and limited, the scrutiny  of  the count  has  to  be even stricter than in a  normal  case  of punitive trial. [819E-F] In  the present case, if the District Magistrate had not  at all  taken  recourse  to the facts  of  the  criminal  cases pending  against  the  detenu  in  Bihar  in  coming  to   a conclusion about his reasonable satisfaction for making  the order  of  detention the matter would have  been  different. But  it  is  clear that the  District  Magistrate  has  been influenced by the existence of the criminal prosecutions  in Bihar and he has chosen those grounds to furnish as aids  to his satisfaction in order to make 814 an  order of detention.  The grounds with reference  to  the pending  criminal prosecutions in Bihar could not provide  a valid  basis for making the order of detention  particularly because  those cases are pending trial in Bihar and in  view of  the decision of the Patna High Court in connection  with one of them.  Hence the detention order is invalid. [819  A- C] Mohd.   Salim Khan v. Shri C. C. Bose, Deputy  Secretary  to the Government of West Bengal and another, A.I.R. 1972  S.C. 1670/1672 distinguished.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 23 of 1974. Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Frank Anthony and K. B. Rohtagi for the Petitioner. D. P. Uniyal, R. Bana and O. P. Rana for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J.-This habeas corpus petition under Article 32  of the  Constitution of India is directed against the order  of the  District Magistrate, Varanasi, of 3rd September,  1973, whereby the petitioner was detained under sub-section  (iii) of  clause  (a)  of sub-section (1) .of section’  3  of  the Maintenance  of  Internal Security Act,  1971  (briefly  the Act).  The order has been passed "with a view to  preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of  supplies and services essential to the community".   The grounds  of detention were served on the petitioner  on  7th

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

September, 1973.  Leaving out the prefatory and  descriptive portions, the grounds of detention may be set out as under:               Ground  No.  3  : "That  you  and  your  other               associates have been charge sheeted by Mohania               Police on 28-11-66 for the offence  punishable               under section 7 F.C. Act and 125 DIR 1962  and               the  case  is  still  pending  in  the  Court,               Magistrate   of   Bhabhua   (Bihar)   as   the               proceedings have been stayed by the orders  of               the High Court, Patna".               Ground  No. 4 : "That with a view to  continue               your   anti-social  activities  and  to   save               yourself  from  the clutches of law  you  have               started a firm under the name and style of M/s               Shyam   Sunder   Ashok   Kumar,   in   Mohalla               Machchodari P. S. Kotwali, Varanasi City  some               time  in  the year 1966 or 1967 and  You  have               purposely  associated  your  minor  son  Ashok               Kumar, your brother Shyam Sunder and a lady of               your family as partners in the said firm  only               in  name  while,  in fact,  you  are  actively               transacting  the entire business of  the  said               firm to carry on the illegal activities".               Ground No. 5 : "That taking undue advantage of               the  acute shortage of the foodgrains  in  the               state due to the failure of the rains  disrupt               the  fair and equitable  distribution  amongst               the public you have succeeded in getting large               quantity   of  maize,  bajra  and  jawar   and               smuggled  to  and stored in  your  goodown  at               Mohania (Bihar), a non-producing area of these               foodgrains in the State of Bihar, just on  the               border  of U.P. through your said  firm  which               will be evidenced by the facts given below :               815               Then  follows  a  detailed list  of  sales  of               bajra, jawar and maize to numerous persons  as               per  cash  memos  mentioned  therein   showing               sales, on 21-6-1973, 26-1973, 7-7-1973,  16-6-               1973 and 16-7-1973               Ground.  No. 6: "That the persons named  above               are  neither foodgrains ’Arhatias’ nor  retail               shopkeepers  either at Chandsuli Bazar  or  in               Chandsuli village".               Ground  No. 7 : "That the aforesaid sales  are               fictitious and have been shown with a view  to               smuggle  bajra, jawar and maize to Bihar  from               where  enough  quantities of bajra  and  jawar               have been booked by rail to Delhi and Poona as               shown below               Then  is given a list of various  bookings  of               225 bags of jWar ’to Delhi, 116 bags of  bajra               to Poona, 150 bags of bajra to Poona, 220 bags               of  bajra  to Poona and 229 bags of  jawar  to               Poona  and  even  railway  wagon  numbers  are               mentioned.               The 7th ground ends as under :--               "All  these consignments were booked to  self.               The consigners of aft these consignments  were               searched  at Mohania on the address  given  in               the  railway  records but no such  persons  or               Bhandar   were  available  on  that   address.               Enquires show that you were the person  behind               these transactions".               Ground  No.  8  : "That  five  trucks  bearing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

             registration No. UPF 2039, USF 3253, UPF 2927,               USS  7745 and UPF 2015 loaded with  jawar  and               bajra were apprehended by Mohania Police on 2-               3-1973  (2/3 July 1973?) on  the  ground  that               all  the trucks belonged to Uttar Pradesh  and               the jawar and bajra loaded on them were  being               smuggled from U.P. to Bihar at your instance".               Ground No. 9: "That 3 bags of rice No. 2,  499               bags  gram, 70 bags of ’Matar’ and 90 bags  of               ’Dal  matar’  were found short on  the  actual               verification of the stock of firm Shyam Sunder               Ashok  Kumar on 17-7-1973 by  Deputy  Regional               Marketing Officer, Varanasi (Enforcement)".               Ground  No. 10 : "That the firm  Shyam  Sunder               Ashok  Kumar  have not  maintained  any  stock               register  and  satta Bhai since 1970  of  oil-               seeds and oil-seeds product but at the time of               checking on 17-7-73, 305 bags of ’Tisi’ and 10               bags of ’Sarson’ were found":               Ground  No.  11 : "In view  of  the  aforesaid               mentioned  grounds  I am  satisfied  that  the               activities  carried on by you are such  as  to               interfere  with  the  scheme  underlying   the               Essential  Commodities  Act and  the  Movement               Orders  promulgated  by Government  under  the               above  Act  in  a manner  prejudicial  to  the               maintenance of supplies and services essential               to the community and it is necessary to detain               you". 9-1-84Sup.C.T. /75 816 The petitioner applied to the High Court of Allahabad  under Article  226  of the Constitution read with section  491  of the,  Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the  order  of detention  and the same was dismissed by the Division  Bench on  26th  November, 1973.  The petitioner  obtained  special leave to appeal against the judgment on 19th December,  1973 and the same has been registered as Criminal Appeal No.  231 of 1973.  The petitioner also filed writ petition No. 23  of 1974 before this Court under Article 32 of the  Constitution on  20th  December,  1973, against the order  of  the  State Government of 21st November, 1973, confirming the  aforesaid order of detention under sect-ion 12.(1) of the Act and rule nisi was issued on 31st January, 1974.  Both the matters are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. On  behalf of the petitioner, the following submissions  are made by Mr. Frank Anthony :               (1)   There  was  considerable  delay  in  the               Government disposing of the representation  of               the  detenu            and hence  it  vitiates               the detention order.               (2)   Ground   No.  8  is   non-existent   and               irrelevant and hence it vitiates the detention               order.               (3)   Some, grounds furnished by the detaining               authority are the subject matters of  criminal               cases which are still sub judice.               (4)   Two remote past incidents of the  detenu               are   made  the  basis  of  some  grounds   of               detention. Although Mr. Anthony made a strong plea on the first  ground regarding  delay  in forwarding the  representation  of  the detenu  to the Government and in its ultimate  disposal,  we will first take up his third submission. It is admitted by Mr. Uniyal, learned counsel for the State,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

that  the Mohania Police Station case referred to in  ground No. 3 is s. ill pending in the criminal court in Bihar.  He, however, submits that ground No. 3 is merely descriptive and is not a ground in itself upon which the detention order has been  based.. We may, therefore, scrutinise  the.  aforesaid submission of Mr. Uniyal.  What is referred to in ground No. 3  is  the criminal case under section 7  of  the  Essential Commodities Act and rule 125 of the Defence of India  Rules, 1962.   This has reference to the first  information  report lodged  by the Inspector of Police, Karm Nasha  Check  Post, Camp  Mohania  Arrah,  Bihar,  on  the  11he  October,  1964 (Annexure-P at page 137 of the writ petition).  The relative charge-sheet  dated  29th November,.  1966  (28th  November, 1966?)  is at Annexure-0 at Page 140 of the  writ  petition. ’The  charge-sheet itself mentions about the said  order  of the Patna High Court.  It is, therefore, clear that the  3rd ground  forms the subject matter of a Criminal trial  which. is  still sub judice.  The charge-sheet  indicates  manifold inter-state  illegal  activities of the firm of  M/-/  Shyam Sunder  Ashok Kumar of Mohania attracting the provisions  of the Essential Commodities Act and the Defence of India Rules besides  other  sections of the Indian Penal  Code.   It  is because 817 of  this 3rd ground that the 4th ground has been  worded  in the  way  it  has been done, namely, "that with  a  view  to continue  your  antisocial activities and to  save  yourself from the clutches of law you have started a firm Linder  the name  and  style  of M/S Shyam Sunder  Ashok  Kumar  We  are therefore,  unable  to accept the submission of  Mr.  Uniyal that  ground No. 3 is merely descriptive and is not  germane with  regard to the order of detention.  On the other  hand, there  is great force in the submission of Mr. Anthony  that ground  No.  3 is the corner-stone of ground No.  4.  It  is clear  that ground No. 3 is covered by a prosecution in  the criminal court which is pending trial in Bihar. It should be mentioned here that the High Court of Patna  in Criminal  Writ Jurisdiction cases Nos. 39 and 40 of 1965  by order dated 21st August, 1965, quashed an order of detention of  the  petitioner made on 19th July, 1965,  based  on  the allegations  in  the same first information report  of  11th October, 1964, of Mohania Police Station under section 7  of the  Essential  Commodities  Act,  1955  and  various  other sections of the Indian Penal Code.  The identical facts  arc now relied upon in ground No. 3. Again  ground No. 8 is also the subject matter  of  criminal case  with reference to the first information report of  3rd July  1973 (Annexure 12 at page 288 of the  writ  petition). There is no controversy that the said criminal case is still pending. Similarly  grounds Nos. 9 and 10 are covered by  a  criminal case  with reference to first information report  dated  5th August,  1973  and  the  relative  charge-sheet  dated  19th September,   1973  under  section  3/7  of   the   Essential Commodities  Act, pending in the criminal court at  Varanasi (U.P.). We  are informed that there is no direct authority  of  this Court  on  the point.  Mr. Uniyal has,  however,  drawn  our attention  to a decision of this Court in Mohd.  Salim  Khan v.  Shri C. C. Bose, Deputy Secretary to the  Government  of West  Bengal  and another,(1) to which one  of  us  (Brother Khanna)  was a party.  The decision is clearly  distinguish- able  as will be clear from the following excerpt  from  the same :-               "The   mere  fact,  however,   that   criminal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

             proceedings   in  connection  with  the   same               incidents   bad  been  adopted   against   the               petitioner  and be had been discharged by  the               trying Magistrate does not mean that no  valid               order of detention could be passed against him               in  connection with those very  incidents.  or               that  such  an order can for  that  reason  be               characterised as mala fide.  It might well  be               that  a magistrate trying a particular  person               under  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  has               insufficient   evidence   before   him,   and,               therefore,  has  to discharge such  a  person.               But the detaining authorities might well  feel               that though there was not sufficient  evidence                             admissible   under  the  Evidence  Act   for   a               conviction,  the  activities of  that  person,               which they had been watching, were               (1) AIR 1972 SC 1670/1672.               818               of  such  a nature as to justify an  order  of               detention.   From  the mere  fact,  therefore,               that the Magistrate discharged the  petitioner               from  the criminal case lodged against him  it               cannot  be  said that the impugned  order  was               incompetent,  nor can it be inferred  that  it               was  without a basis or mala fide.  See  Sahib               Singh Dugal v. Union of India"(1).                In the    above   premises,  more  than   one               question may arise for consideration     with               regard to the third submission of Mr. Anthony. Firstly   by whether the detenu can be said to be reasonably able to make an effective representation against this ground when he has  been  facing  a  trial  in  the  criminal  courts.   By disclosing  his  defence  and  certain  facts,  can  he  not complain  that he will be handicapped in defending,  himself in  the criminal courts?  It is well settled that in a  case of  preventive  detention  the grounds  must  be  clear  and definite   to  enable  the  detenu  to  make  an   effective representation  to the Government to induce the  authorities to  take a view in his favour.  He must, therefore,  have  a real and affective opportunity to make his representation to establish  his  innocence.   Being  faced  with  a  criminal prosecution which is pending against him all through, we are clearly of the view that the detenu has not got a proper and reasonable  opportunity  in accordance with law to  make  an effective  representation  against  the  impugned  order  of detention covered by the said proceeding. Secondly,  the  question  is  whether  it  is  open  to  the detaining  authority  to  choose  two  parallel  proceedings against  the  detenu  as in this case.  The  fact  that  the ground  of detention could be a subject matter  of  criminal prosecution  is not enough to vitiate a detention  order  if the detaining authority does not choose to prosecute him and only  passes  an open trial.  The choice  of  the  authority concerned for the mode of no answer that the detenu must  be prosecuted  in  the criminal court in an  open  trial.   The choice of the authority concerned for the, mode of  tackling the illegal activity cannot per se be illegal and the  order of detention will be judged on its merits in accordance with the  law  laid down by this Court.  The  position  will  be, however, entirely different if the authority concerned makes an order of detention under the Act and also prosecutes  him in  a  criminal case on the self-same facts.  This,  in  our

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

view,  is  totally barred.  The detaining  authority  cannot take  recourse to two parallel and simultaneous  proceedings nor  can  take  recourse to a ground which  is  the  subject matter  of  a  criminal trial as in the case  of  the  first information  report  dated 5th August, 1973  furnishing  the grounds  9 and 10 of the detention order.  That fact  itself introduces a serious infirmity in the order of detention for which the same must be held to be invalid.  Similarly  it is obvious that two of the cases are  pending in  the criminal courts in Bihar.  But it is also clear,  as noted above, that the Patna High Court had quashed the order of  detention  of  the Government of Bihar  based  on  facts relating  to the first information report of  11th  October, 1964, although on grounds different from those which we  are now considering.  If the District Magistrate in the  instant case had (1)  [1966] (1) SCR 313 quoted in AIR 1972 SC 1670.                             819 not at all taken recourse to the facts of the criminal cases pending  against  the  detenu  in Bihar  in  coming  to  the conclusion  about his reasonable satisfaction for making  an order  of detention, the matter would have  been  different. It is clear that the District Magistrate has been influenced by  the existence of the criminal prosecutions in Bihar  and he  has  chosen  those grounds to furnish  as  aids  to  his satisfaction  in order to make the order of  detention.   We are  clearly of the view that the grounds with reference  to the pending criminal prosecutions in Bihar could not provide a  valid basis for making the impugned order  of  detention, particularly  because those cases are pending trial  in  the criminal courts in Bihar and in view of the decision of  the Patna  High  Court in connection with one  of  these  cases. Since  the  detention order is based on these  grounds,  the same  must be held to be invalid.  The third  submission  of the learned counsel, is, therefore, accepted. It  is well settled that in an order under the  present  Act the decision of the authority is a subjective one and if one of  the  grounds  is nonexistent or  irrelevant  or  is  not available  under  the law, the entire detention  order  will fall since it is not possible to predicate as to whether the detaining  authority would have made an order for  detention even  in the absence of non-existent or  irrelevant  ground. The conclusion is, therefore, irresistible in this case that the,  impugned  order is invalid and the detention  in  this case must be held to be illegal. As  too many cooks spoil the broth so also too many  grounds may  vitiate  an order of detention if any one  of  them  is irrelevant or nonexistent.  The authority, therefore, has to be  careful  enough  to see that  only  relevant  and  valid grounds  are selected having a nexus with the object of  the order  of  detention.  Although the aim and  object  of  the order  of  detention be laudable and the  antecedents  of  a detenu be extremely reproachable yet it is essential that if it  is  desired  to  detain  a  person  without  trial,  the authorities concerned should conform to the requirements  of the law.  The shady antecedents of the detenu cannot provide a  justification  for  non-compliance  with  the   mandatory provisions.   The  scope  of  the inquiry  in  the  case  of preventive  detention  based  upon  subjective  satisfaction being  necessarily narrow and limited, the scrutiny  of  the court  has  to  be even stricter than in a  normal  case  of punitive trial. Since we have held the order of detention as invalid for the reasons  given above, it is not necessary to deal  with  the other  grounds submitted by Mr. Anthony.  The writ  petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

and  the appeal are allowed.  The judgment of the  Allahabad High Court is set aside and in the view we have taken we  do not  feel called upon to pronounce upon the various  reasons given by the High Court in rejecting the petition.  The rule nisi  is  made absolute.  The petitioner shall  be  released forth with from the jail unless he is required in any  other case.   Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 318 of  1974  is allowed.   The application for taking additional  papers  on record is rejected. V.P.S. Petition allowed. 820