Sailesh Dutta Alias Katla vs The State Of West Bengal
- SCC(1974) 4 SCC 83
- AIRAIR 1974 SC 1817
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where grounds of detention under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 allege that a person has systematically stolen railway signal equipment by armed force with the intent to disrupt train services, and such allegations, if proved, would constitute acts prejudicial to maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, the detention order is not invalid merely on the basis of the grounds as stated, provided the detaining authority could reasonably be satisfied of the necessity for detention on such grounds.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner is detained by the District Magistrate, Howrah by an order dated 9-10-1972 passed in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). The order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
2. The grounds served on the detenu are as follows :
1. On 27.7.1972 at about 7.30 hrs. you along with your associate being armed with bombs, daggers etc. committed theft of 10 metres of 12 core P.V.C. cable from Down distant signal of Baranagar Rly. Stn. in between KM Post No. 5/16 to 5/17. Being resisted by the Rly. employees you and your associates scared them away by pelting stones and hurling bombs, and made good your escape with the stolen cables. As a result of this theft train services in Sealdah Dankuni Section was seriously disrupted.
2. On 8.8.1972 at about 21.30 hrs. you along with your associates being armed with bombs, daggers etc. committed theft at 25 feet of 12 Gore PVC cable from KM Post No. 10/15 to 10/13 in between Ballyghat and Dankuni Rly. Station. The Railway employees tried to resist but you and your associates scared them away pelting stones and hurling bombs and managed to escape with the stolen cables. As a result of this theft train services in Sealdah Dankuni Station was seriously disrupted.
3. The grounds show that the petitioner made it a business to cut Railway signal equipment with a view to disrupt train services. The cutting of the PVC cables of the signal is considered by the petitioner so essential for his objectives that he and his associates thought it necessary to be armed with bombs, daggers etc. to prevent any interference with their activities. If the facts are true, it was a very serious matter and the District Magistrate would be justifiably satisfied of the necessity of passing orders of detention to prevent the petitioner from indulging in such acts plainly prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
4. We do not think that there is anything else to show that the detention was invalid. The petition is dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free