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

PETITIONER: RAM KRISHNA PAUL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE GOVT.  OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/02/1972

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ SHELAT, J.M. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN

CITATION:  1972 AIR  863            1972 SCR  (3) 401  1972 SCC  (1) 570  CITATOR INFO :  D          1972 SC1650  (5)  F          1990 SC1272  (10)

ACT: West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970, s. 3--Grounds  of detention--One of the grounds  extraneous  in character. Order of detention would be vitiated.

HEADNOTE: The  petitioner  was detained under section 6  of  the  West Bengal  Prevention of Violent Activities Act, 1970.  One  of the   grounds  of  detention  which  was  supplied  to   the petitioner  under sub-section (1) of section 8 was  that  he alongwith  his associates went to a pharmacy posing  himself as a purchaser of medicine and demanded money from the owner of the pharmacy in the name of collection towards party fund and  out  of  fear  the owner delivered  Rs.  10/-  to  him. Quashing the order of detention, HELD : (i) The ground does not fall under any of the clauses of  s. 3 setting out the circumstances under which a  person can be ordered to be detained and is therefore extraneous in character. (ii) There   is  no  allegation  in  the  ground  that   the petitioner had put any person in fear of any injury to  that person or to any other.  As such it cannot be said that  the petitioner was guilty of extortion.  Intention-ally  putting a  person  in. fear of injury to himself or any other  is  a necessary ingredient of the offence of extortion. [403 B] (iii)     There  is  nothing  to  show  that  the   District Magistrate would, have passed the order of detention of  the petitioner  in  case  he was not  influenced  by  the  facts mentioned  in the ground.  Therefore, the extraneous  nature of  even one of the grounds of detention would  vitiate  the order of detention. [403 D]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 307 of 1971. Under article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ  in the nature of habeas corpus.

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

R.   K. Jain, for the petitioner G.   L. Mukhoty and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna, J. This is a petition through jail under article  32 of  the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ  of habeas corpus by Ram Krishna Paul who has been ordered to be detained  under section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention  of Violent  Activities)  Act, 1970 (President’s Act No.  19  of 1970), hereinafter referred to as the Act. 402 The order of detention was made against the petitioner under sub-section  (1) read with sub-section (3) of section  3  of the  Act by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad on  January 27, 1971.  According to the order of detention, the District Magistrate was satisfied with respect to the petitioner that with  a  view to preventing him from acting  in  any  manner prejudicial  to  the  maintenance of public  order,  it  was necessary  to  make an order directing his  detention.   The petitioner in pursuance of the detention order was  arrested on  January 28, 1971 and was served with the same  day  with the ground of detention together with vernacular translation thereof.  Report about the making of the detention order was sent  by  the District Magistrate to  the  State  Government along with the grounds of detention and other particulars on January  27,  1971.   The report and  the  particulars  were considered  by  the  State  Government  and  the  order   of detention was approved by the said Government on February 5, 1971.  The same day the State Government submitted a  report to  the  Central  Government together with  the  grounds  of detention  and other particulars.  On February 18, 1971  the State  Government  in  its  Home  Department  received   re- presentation dated February 15, 1971 sent by the petitioner. The said representation after consideration was rejected  by the State Government ’on March 23, 1971.  In the  meanwhile, on  February 25, 1971 the State Government placed  the  case relating  to the petitioner before the Advisory Board.   The representation made by the petitioner was sent by the  State Government  to  the Board on March 23, 1971.   The  Advisory Board  after hearing the petitioner, sent its report to  the State Government on April 5, 1971.  Opinion was expressed in its  report by the Advisory Board that there was  sufficient cause  for  the  detention  of  the  petitioner’  The  State Government  confirmed  the order of detention of  the  peti- tioner on May 31, 1971.  The confirmation order was communi- cated  to  the petitioner as per memorandum dated  June  10, 1971. The  petition  was  resisted  by  the  respondents  and  the affidavit of Shri Manoranjan Dey, Assistant Secretary,  Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal was filed in opposition to the petition. After  hearing Mr. R. K. Jain who argued the  matter  amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G. L. Mukhoti  on behalf  of the respondents on January 13, 1972, we  directed that,  for  reasons  to be recorded  later,  the  petitioner should  be set at liberty.  We now proceed to give  reasons in support of our decision. Although a number of submissions were made on behalf of  the petitioner  at  the  hearing, it is,  in  our  opinion,  not necessary to deal with all of them as the detention order is liable  to  be quashed because one of the  grounds  for  the detention of the petitioner was 403 extraneous  and  did not in law justify the  making  of  the detention order. The  grounds of detention which were supplied to  the  peti-

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

tioner under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act read as under :               " (1) That on 8-12-70 at about 20.00 hours you               along  with  your associates went  to  Jnanada               Pharmacy in Berhampore town posing yourself a               purchaser of medicine and demanded money  from               the  owner  of  the Pharmacy in  the  name  of               collection  towards party fund.  Out of  fear,               the owner of the pharmacy delivered Rs.  10/to               you.               (2)   That  on 18-12-70 at about  20.00  hours               you  along  with your associates had  been  to               Punjab Dastralaya Khagra, P. S. Berhampor  and               demanded  Rs. 100/from the shopkeeper  at  the point   of  dagger on the plea  of  collecting               donation towards the party fund.  Putting  the               owner  of the shop in fear of  instant  death,               you induced him to deliver up an amount of Rs.               100/- then and there,               (3)   That  on 22-10-70 at about  19.30  hours               you  along  with your associates had  been  to               Jnanada Pharmacy, Berhampore town and demanded               Rs.  250/- from the owner of the  Pharmacy  at               the  point  of dagger putting him in  fear  of               instant death.  The owner of the Pharmacy  was               spared on payment of Rs. 50/- forthwith.   You               and your associates went away fixing  26-12-70               for payment of the remaining amount.               (4)   That  on 26-12-70 a,. about 20.00  hours               you along with your associates came to Jnanada               Pharmacy,  Berhampore  and realised  Rs.  20/-               from the owner of the Pharmacy at the point of               dagger putting him in fear of instant death." The  various  circumstances  under which a  Person  can  be’ ordered  to be detained have been set out in  the  different clauses  of section 3 of the Act.  Ground No. 1 supplied  to the  petitioner, in our opinion, does not fall under any  of those  clauses.  According to Mr. Mukhoti the facts set  out in ground No. 1 would show that the petitioner received Rs. 10/-  from  the  owner of Jnanada Pharmacy as  a  result  of extortion.  Extortion has been defined in section 383 of the Indian Penal Co& as under :               "Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear               of any injury to that person, or to any other,               and thereby               404               dishonestly induces the person so put in  fear               to  deliver  to  any person  any  property  or               valuable security or anything signed or sealed               which   may  be  converted  into  a   valuable               security, commits "extortion." It  would  appear from the above definition  that  before  a person  can be guilty of extortion, he should  intentionally put  any person in fear of injury, to that person or to  any other,  and  thereby induce that person so put  in  fear  to deliver  to any person some property, valuable  security  or anything  signed  or  sealed which  may  be  converted  into valuable  security.  Intentionally putting a person in  fear of  injury  to himself or any other is,  thus,  a  necessary ingredient  of the offence of extortion.  In ground  No.  1, however, there is no allegation that the petitioner had  put any  person in fear of any injury, to that person or to  any other.   As such, it cannot besaid that the petitioner  was guilty of extortion. We  thus  find  that  ground No.  1  was  of  an  extraneous

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

character and did not justify an order of detention.   There is  also nothing to show that the District Magistrate  would have passed an order of detention of the petitioner in  case he  was not influenced by facts given in ground No.  1.  The extraneous  nature of even one of the grounds  of  detention would, in our opinion, vitiate the order of detention. We,   therefore,  quash  the  order  of  detention  of   the petitioner.  K.B.N. 405