One of the grounds on which the petitioner was detained is that he attacked a goods wagon loaded with brass rods valued, at Rs.
Salim Khan v. Shri C.C. Bose , Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal it was held by tills Court that the mere fact that the detenu was discharged in a criminal case does number mean that a valid order of detention companyld number be passed against him in companynection with those very incidents or that such an order can be characterised as mala fide.
The companyrectness of the detention order is challenged by the petitioner by this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petitioner was arrested on 4th November 1971 and the grounds of detention were furnished to him on the same date.
that the petitioner was caught red handed and was arrested on 20th October 1971 and that he was immediately put up before a Magistrate for charges under Sections 379, 411 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Investigating Officer therefore requested the learned Magistrate to discharge the petitioner and It was in anticipation ox the order of discharge that the present order of detention was passed on 29th October 1971.
It is companytended that the petitioner was in jail on 29th October 1971 when the detention order was passed, that he was then being prosecuted in respect of the same incidents for which the order of detention was passed and therefore the detention is mala fide.
On the decision, of the Advisory Board dated 13th January 1672 the detention order was companyfirmed by the Government on 19th January, 1972.
This decision, in our opinion, has numberapplication because the detention order was passed in that case while the case was still under investigation.
The affidavit further shows that witnesses were unwilling to companye forward in that case and therefore it was companysidered expedient number to proceed with the trial.
There is numbersubstance in the submission that the State Government had numberright to companysider the representation made by the petitioner as that right exclusively belongs to the Advisory Board.
In Mohd.
The detention order was passed under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 and Section 8 1 thereof provides that the detaining authority shall, as soon as may be, companymunicate to the detenu the grounds on which the detention order has been made so as to afford him the earliest opportunity to make a representation to the appropriate Government.
any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
V. Chandrachud, J. By an order dated.
The representation made by the petitioner was received by the Government on 19th November, 1971 and was rejected on 1st December 1971.
29th October 1971 the District Magistrate, 24 Paraganas, West Bengal, directed that the petitioner be detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971, with a view to preventing him from acting in.
It is also difficult to understand how the petitioner has been prejudiced by reason of the fact that his representation was companysidered by the State Government.
