It was companytended that the order of detention was procured mala fide upon false reports made vindictively under the Defence of India Rules by the officers in the police and Customs Departments.
The case of the appellant is that he was carrying on business of purchasing and selling goods like cloves, cinnamon, dye stuff etc.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 8, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Case No.
After the companyclusion of arguments in this case on May 3.
The companytention of the appellant is that the order of detention was made on September 27,1965 by the Chief Minister, West Bengal number because of any material suggesting that the appellant was acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order but because of the false reports made by the police and Customs officers.
It was pointed out that on August 16, 1964 the appellant had sent a representation to the Chief Minister of West Bengal and other higher authorities saying that the police had been creating fictitious records for putting the appellant under detention under the Defence of India Rules.
C. Chatterjee, S. K. Dutta and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, B. Sen, P. K. Chatterjes and P. K. Bose, for the respondents.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No, 110 of 1966.
the Governor in exercise of the power companyferred by Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, is pleased hereby to direct that the said person be detained and be kept in custody in the Presidency Jail during the period of such detention.
In response to the numberice an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal denying the allegations of the appellant.
The order of detention being No.
in the city of Calcutta.
In August and September, 1965 the appellant had sent representations against the police and Customs officers to the Chief Minister, West Bengal and other higher authorities.
1966 in Criminal Misc.
266 of 1965 refusing to grant a writ in the nature of habeas companypus ordering the release of the appellant, Jaichand Lal Sethia from detention under an order passed by the Government of West Bengal under r, 30 of the Defence of India Rules.
After hearing the parties, the Calcutta High Court hold that the order of detention was lawfully made by the Chief Minister of West Bengal and the allegation of mala fide had number been established by the appellant.
Officer in charge of that Police Station The appellant also said that he incurred the displeasure of the officers of the Customs De partment who had illegally seized the goods of the appellant and also prevented him from participating at the auction sales of Customs Department.
In the month of January, 1963 the appellant had some trouble with the police of Burrabazar, P.S. in Calcutta, particularly with the Sub Inspector Kalyan Dutt.
On September 27, 1965 the order of detention of the appellant was made by the Government of West Bengal under r. 30 of the Defence of India Rules and in pursuance of that order the appellant was detained in the Presidency jail at Calcutta.
266 of 1965.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated February 8.
In July, 1965 three defamation cases were started against the appellant at the instance of the Customs officers.
It was said that the order was made by the Chief Minister, West Bengal number because he was satisfied about the necessity of detaining him in the interest of public order but for ulterior companysiderations.
The case of the appellant was that the order of detention was made mala fide because the appellant had incurred the personal hostility of some officers in the police and Customs Departments.
The appellant obtained a rule from the Calcutta High Court asking the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of habeas companypus should number be granted directing the release of the appellant from detention.
Case No.
The appellant had made a companyplaint to the higher authorities of the Customs Department in this respect.
ports submitted by the police and Customs authorities whose enmity had been incurred by the appellant.
Affidavits were also filed by Kalyan Dutt and Debranjan Dutta companytroverting the allegations of the appellant so far as they were companycerned.,
