Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for habeas corpus filed by Sasti alias Satish Chowdhary, who was detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 by the District Magistrate Howrah. The detention order was made on September 8, 1971 to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The petitioner was found to be absconding and was arrested on November 23, 1971, when he was served with the order and grounds of detention along with vernacular translation. The State Government approved the detention on September 10, 1971; the petitioner's representation was rejected on December 21, 1971; the Advisory Board expressed opinion on January 28, 1972 that there was sufficient cause for detention; and the State Government confirmed the order on February 11, 1972. The ground of detention stated that on July 9, 1971 at about 23:30 hours, the petitioner and his associates were found committing theft of overhead electric wires between two posts near Zanana Latrine of Lawrence & Co. at Chakkashi. They were seen cutting the wire; the darwans raised alarm and with the help of local people arrested the petitioner and two associates with stolen copper wire. This act created complete dislocation of electric supplies of the area. The legal issue was whether a detention order under the Act is illegal when the act attributed to the detenu constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code and prosecution could be launched. The petitioner, through amicus curiae, argued that since the act was an offence under IPC, he could only be tried in court and detention was not permissible. The State contended that the ground was germane to the object of the Act and the detention was valid. The Court held that it is always open to the detaining authority to pass a detention order if the grounds are germane to the object for which such order can legally be made. The fact that the particular act constitutes an offence under IPC does not prevent the authority from ordering detention instead of prosecuting; the authority might feel that though there was insufficient evidence admissible under the Indian Evidence Act for conviction, the activities justified detention. Even if a person has been discharged by a magistrate after prosecution, a valid detention order can be passed in connection with the same incident. The Court relied on Mohd. Salim Khan v. Shri C. C. Bose & Anr. and Sahib Singh Duggal v. Union of India, and referred to Pushkar Mukherjee, Arun Ghosh and Nagendra Nath Mondal. The Court found that the ground of theft of overhead electric wires resulting in complete dislocation of electric supplies was germane to the object under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Act, which permits detention to prevent acts prejudicial to maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Accordingly, the Court rejected the petition and upheld the detention order as valid.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Preventive Detention - Validity of Detention Despite Criminal Offence - Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Section 3(1)(a)(iii) - The petitioner was detained for theft of overhead electric wires causing complete dislocation of electric supplies. The petitioner argued that because the act constituted an offence under the Indian Penal Code, he could only be tried in court and detention was illegal. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that preventive detention is not barred merely because the alleged act is also a criminal offence; the detaining authority may detain if the grounds are germane to the object of the Act. The ground of theft causing dislocation of essential supplies was germane to maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Held detention valid. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether preventive detention under Section 3 of Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 is illegal when the alleged act constitutes an offence under Indian Penal Code and prosecution could be launched instead.
Final Decision
Supreme Court rejected petition, held detention valid; ground of theft of overhead electric wires causing dislocation of electric supplies was germane to maintenance of supplies and services essential to community under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
Law Points
- Preventive detention can be ordered even if the act of detenu constitutes an offence under Indian Penal Code
- Detaining authority may detain instead of prosecution if grounds are germane
- Detention valid even if prosecution could be launched or after discharge by magistrate
- Ground of theft causing dislocation of electric supplies is germane to maintenance of supplies and services essential to community under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of Maintenance of Internal Security Act
- 1971
