Mohd. Dhana Ali Khan VS. State Of West Bengal

Supreme Court of India

Case Law No.17, Reporting JudgeFazalali,syed Murtaza

Linked as:



Summary


The petitioner was detained under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. In a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner contended that a single incident of theft committed in a train had no nexus with the disturbance of public order, (2) that under S. 14 of the Act it was open to the Central Government to revoke or modify the order of detention and, therefore, there must be some material to show that the Government of India applied- its mind under S. 14 of the Act and (3) that the District Magistrate was not only influenced by the grounds served on the petitioner but also by other materials on the record and as such the order of detention was vitiated.

Allowing the petition,

HELD.:(1) The ground mentioned in the order of detention did have a nexus with the disturbance of public order. It is true that the ground contained a single incident of theft of valuable property from some passengers travelling in a running train and may amount to robbery. But that did not by itself take the case out of the purview of the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. The allegation was that the petitioner had snatched away a wrist watch and a gold chain after putting the passengers of the compartment to fear of death. Secondly, the theft had taken place at night in a running train in a third class compartment. The effect of it would be to deter peaceful citizens from travelling in trains at night. This would undoubtedly disturb the even tempo of the life of the community. [126D to F]

(2)There is no material on record to show that the Central Government did not apply its mind at all under S. 14 of the Act. Section 14 merely confers a discretion on the Central Government to revoke or modify an order of detention made by the State Government. It does not confer any right or privilege on the detenu. It is for the Central Government to revoke or modify after the report was submitted to it.

The mere fact that the Central Government did not choose to revoke or modify the order of detention without anything more cannot necessarily lead to the irresistible inference that the Central Government failed to apply its mind. It cannot, therefore, be said that as the Central Government did not apply its mind tinder S. 14 of the Act, this would invalidate the order of detention. [126G-H & 127A]

(3)The order of detention suffers from a very serious infirmity which goes to the root of the matter. The District Magistrate was influenced not only by the ground which was served on the petitioner but also by other materials on the record. The history sheet of the detenu which was placed before the District Magistrate had been produced and it could be seen from it that there were four incidents, many of which related to thefts in running trains. It is true that in another place in his affidavit the District Magistrate had stated that he was satisfied only on the basis of the incident mentioned in the ground served on the petitioner. But this was contradictory to what he had stated in the opening paragraph of the counter- affidavit. The District Magistrate, before passing the order of detention, had other materials also before him. It cannot, therefore, be 125

said to what extent the District Magistrate was influenced by the other materials and not by the material which is mentioned in the ground of detention. [127E-G]

Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1975 S. C. 550, referred to.

See the full content of this document

Extract


Mohd. Dhana Ali Khan VS. State Of West Bengal

PETITIONER: MOHD. DHANA ALI KHAN Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/04/1975

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION: 1976 AIR 734 1976 SCR 124 1975 SCC (2) 586

CITATOR INFO : R 1989 SC 371 (14)

ACT: Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971-Whether a single incident of theft in a running train at night had nexus with disturbance of public order--S. 14-Whether confers a discretionary power on the Central Government to revoke or modify an order-Detaining ...

See the full content of this document