Supreme Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Petitioner in Preventive Detention Case on Computation of Three-Month Confirmation Period. Confirmation of Detention Under Section 12 of West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 Was Valid as Date of Detention Excluded When Computing Three-Month Period.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 11
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court of India dealt with a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus against the detention of the petitioner under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The petitioner was arrested and detained on February 5, 1971, pursuant to an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, passed under Section 3(1) and (3) of the Act. His case was referred to the Advisory Board, which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention. Subsequently, the State Government, acting under Section 12 of the Act, made an order on May 5, 1971 confirming the detention order and continuing the detention. The only contention raised in the petition was that the confirmation order was made one day after the expiration of the period of three months from the date of detention. The petitioner argued that the three-month period would end at midnight on May 4, 1971, and any confirmation thereafter would be invalid. The Supreme Court examined the method of computing the period of three months from the date of detention. Relying on Halsbury's Laws of England and a series of English authorities, the Court reiterated the well-established rule that where a particular time is given from a certain date within which an act is to be done, the day on that date is to be excluded. This rule had been consistently followed in cases such as Young v. Higgon, Radcliffe v. Bartholomew, and others. Applying this principle, the Court excluded February 5, 1971, the date of commencement of detention, from the computation. Consequently, the confirmation order made on May 5, 1971 was held to be within the period of three months from the date of detention. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was not sustained, and the writ petition was dismissed. The Court's decision affirmed the validity of the detention order and the confirmation, thereby rejecting the challenge to the timing of the confirmation.

Headnote

A) Preventive Detention - Computation of Time - Exclusion of First Day and Inclusion of Last Day - West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's Act 19 of 1970), Sections 3(1), 3(3), 12 and 13 - The petitioner was detained on February 5, 1971 under Section 3(1) and (3) of the Act, and the State Government confirmed the detention under Section 12 on May 5, 1971. The petitioner contended that the three-month period from the date of detention expired at midnight on May 4, 1971, making confirmation one day late. The Court applied the well-established rule that in computing a period within which an act is to be done, the first day is excluded and the last day included. Accordingly, February 5, 1971 was excluded, and the confirmation on May 5, 1971 was within the three-month period; the writ petition was dismissed. Held that the order of confirmation was made before the expiration of three months from the date of detention. (Pages 330-331)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the confirmation of the detention order made on May 5, 1971 was within the period of three months from the date of detention on February 5, 1971, and the correct method of computing the said period

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that in computing the period of three months from the date of detention, the date of commencement of detention (February 5, 1971) was to be excluded, and therefore the confirmation order made on May 5, 1971 was before the expiration of the three-month period.

Law Points

  • In computing a period of time from a specified date within which an act is to be done
  • the first day is excluded and the last day included
  • Date of detention excluded while computing three-month period for confirmation of detention under West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act
  • 1970
  • Writ petition dismissed as confirmation made within time
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1972 LawText (SC) (02) 38

Writ Petition No. 287 of 1971

1972-02-01

J.M. Shelat, Hans Raj Khanna

1972 AIR 1293, 1972 SCR (3) 329, 1972 SCC (1) 639

N. N. Goswami (for the petitioner), D. N. Mukherjee, Sukumar Basu, G. S. Chatterjee (for the respondent)

Haru Das Gupta

State of West Bengal

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus challenging the validity of the confirmation and continuation of preventive detention.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to quash the detention order and secure release, contending that the confirmation was made after the permissible three-month period.

Filing Reason

The State Government confirmed the detention order on May 5, 1971; the petitioner contended that the three-month period from detention on February 5, 1971 expired on May 4, 1971, rendering the confirmation invalid.

Previous Decisions

The Advisory Board reported sufficient cause for detention; the State Government confirmed the detention order under Section 12 of the Act on May 5, 1971.

Issues

Whether the confirmation of the detention order made on May 5, 1971 was after the expiration of the period of three months from the date of detention on February 5, 1971. What is the correct method of computing the period of three months from a specified date under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner contended that the period of three months from the date of detention ended at midnight on May 4, 1971, and any confirmation thereafter would be invalid because it was one day late. The State defended the confirmation as valid on the ground that in computing the period of three months, the date of detention (February 5, 1971) was to be excluded, making the confirmation on May 5, 1971 timely.

Ratio Decidendi

The rule of computation of time that where a particular time is given from a certain date within which an act is to be done, the day on that date is to be excluded, and the last day included; applied to confirm detention order within three months from date of detention by excluding the date of detention.

Judgment Excerpts

The effect of defining a period from such a day until such a day within which an act is to be done is to exclude the first day and to include the last day. In computing the period of three months from the date of detention, which was February 5, 1971, before the expiration of which the order or decision for confirming the detention order and continuation of the detention thereunder had to be made, the date of the commencement of detention, namely, February 5, 1971, has to be excluded.

Procedural History

The petitioner was arrested and detained on February 5, 1971 under an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, made under Section 3(1) and (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. His case was referred to the Advisory Board, which reported sufficient cause for detention. The State Government, under Section 12 of the Act, confirmed the detention order and continued detention on May 5, 1971. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on February 1, 1972.

Acts & Sections

  • West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's Act 19 of 1970): 3, 3(1), 3(3), 12, 13
  • Constitution of India: Article 32
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Partly Allowed the State's Appeal in a Dispute Over Cess Demands Under Madras Commercial Crops Market Act, 1933, Holding That the 1958 Mysore Amendment Act Did Not Apply to Bellary Area. The Court Ruled That the Substituted Section 11(1...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Landlord's Interim Application for Market Rent Deposit Pending Civil Revision Against Reversal of Eviction Decree. Tenant directed to deposit market rent as per Atma Ram Properties ratio, with liberty to withdraw by landlord ...