Summary
The appellants partner in a grocery shop, was detained under s. 3 (I) (a) (iii) and s. 4 of the Preventive Detention Act for indulging in black-marketing of essential commodities.
He was supplied with an order detailing a number of grounds in support of his detention. In one of the &rounds viz., cl. (a) of the order the name of the shopkeeper to whom the appellant was said to have sold match boxes and soap "at a price higher than that fixed for these commodities" was not mentioned. Neither the price fixed nor the price at which it was said to have been sold was mentioned. In another ground viz.' el. (d) of the order a sale was alleged to K who was not existing in the described locality. On the question of the validity of the order of detention, this Court,HELD : The order must be set aside., The ground mentioned in cl. (a) was vague. The futility of making representation in respect of an unknown man and of an unspecified price can easily be imagined. There was no opportunity to the appellant' to satisfy the Advisory Board that the alleged purchaser was a ficutious figure or that he is an enemy of his or that the information given by him should otherwise be not accepted. [590 C-E]Further, there was nothing to show that the Government had either fixed the sale price of the commodities or it had any power to do so. Therefore the ground in el. (a) was not only vague but also irrelevant.The ground mentioned in el. (d) was non-existent. The State's explanation that the sale was made to K of another locality and due to typographical mistake the locality was wrongly described was curious That apart, the appellant could not have made any representation in respect of the such a new allegation against him.The State's contention that even if the grounds mentioned in cis. (a) and (d) are ignored, still the detention of the appellant could be justified on the remaining grounds mentioned in that order, was wholly untenable. The defects noticed in the two grounds viz cls. (a) and (d) were suffi- cient to vitiate the.order of detention impugned, in these proceedings as it was not possible to hold that those grounds could not have influenced the decision of the detaining authority. The constitutional requirement that the grounds must not be vague must be satisfied with respect to each of the grounds communicated to the person detained subject to the claim of privilege under el. (6) of Art. 22 of the Constitution, and where one of the grounds mentioned is vague, even though other grounds are not vague the detention is not in accordance with the procedure established by law and is therefore illegal. [591 F; C-D].L7 Sup. CI/68-13 588Dr. RaM Krishan Bhardwaj v. State of Delhi, [1953] S.C.R.708, Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of U.P. [1954] S.C.R. 418, Dwarka Dass Bhatia v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, [1956]S.C.R. 948 and Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar,[1968] 2 S.C.R. 505, followed.See the full content of this document
Extract
Motilal Jain VS. State Of Bihar & Ors.
PETITIONER: MOTILAL JAIN Vs.RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/03/1968BENCH: HEGDE, K.S.BENCH: HEGDE, K.S.VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.SHAH, J.C.SIKRI, S.M.BACHAWAT, R.S.MITTER, G.K.CITATION: 1968 AIR 1509 1968 SCR (3) 587CITATOR INFO : RF 1969 SC 323 (13)RF 1973 SC 295 (8)R 1974 SC 156 (6)R 1974 SC 183 (15,19,59)R 1974 SC 255 (9)R 1979 SC1925 (8)ACT: Preventive Detention Act (4 of 1950), ss. 3(1)(c)(iii) and 4 Several grounds in order of detention-Some Vague and non- existent Whether order can be sustained.JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1968.Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated December 15, 1967 of the, Patna High Court in Crl. W.J.C.No. 92 of 1966.M. C. Chagla, A. N. Sinha and B. P. Jha, for the appellant.U. P. Singh, for respon...
See the full content of this document
If you are already a vLex customer, access here