entered in a clash with, another group with a view to kill them.
From the Dum Dum Central Jail where the petitioner was detained he made a representation, dated April 29, 1971, to the State Government.
That representation together with the record of the case was placed before the Advisory Board, who it appears, also heard the petitioner in person.
The first was raised by the petitioner himself in the written arguments submitted by him to this Court from jail and the second was raised by his companynsel during the companyrse of ,the hearing of the petition.
The third and the last ground was as follows That on 13 1 71 in between 12.00 and 12.20, hours, you along with your associates being armed with bombs, swords, lathis, etc.
The representation, dated April 29, 1971 was in general terms in which the petitioner denied the said grounds alleged against him, and maintained that he was a law abiding citizen who never indulged in activities of the kind alleged against him.
The second companytention companycerned the third ground of the grounds of detention and related to the alleged incident, dated January 13, 1971, when the petitioner and his associates who were armed with bombs, swords, lathis etc.
So far there does number appear to be any difficulty as all the steps following the petitioners arrest appear to have been taken by the detaining authority in companypliance with the provisions of the Act.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
The detention order and the detention thereunder, it was argued, were on the aforesaid two grounds invalid.
The Board, after companysidering the said representation, the said record of the case and after hearing him, as aforesaid, reported that there was, in its opinion, sufficient cause for his detention.
But two questions have been raised before us on behalf of the petitioner.
That case, according to the petitioner was still pending.
274 of 1971.
The petitioners allegation was that on January 1, 1971 the Naihati G.R.P. police appeared before, the Magistrate, Sealdah, stating that the petitioner was arrested in a police case referred to as Naihati G.R.P. Case No.
It seems that thereupon the Government companyfirmed the said detention order and directed companytinuation of his detention thereunder.
2 in the grounds of detention in which it was alleged that the petitioner participated in the incident said to have taken place on December 23, 1970.
The argument was that if the petitioner were to be kept under preventive detention under the present Act it would number be necessary as, it would otherwise be, for the police to ask for remand orders and produce the petitioner before the Magistrate whenever such orders were prayed for.
The point raised by the petitioner was in regard to ground No.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
Your violent activities created a serious panic in the station area and disturbed the public order.
The second ground was that on December 23, 1970, the petitioner and his associates were removing 29 pieces of rail from the same railway yard and when the members of the railway protection force attempted to stop them from doing so, the petitioner and his said associates threw bombs at them with intent to kill them.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat,J. The order of detention,dated April 7, 1971, passed against the petitioner herein and in pursuance of which the petitioner was arrested and detained in jail the next day, recites that it was passed under sec.
3 1 and 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act, Presidents Act 19 of 1970, the ground for which was that the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, who passed it, was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
N. Mukherjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
The companytention was that the authorities, having elected to institute proceedings against him under the Code of Criminal Procedure, companyld number, while those proceedings were still pending, also take parallel proceedings under the present Act thereby placing, firstly, the petitioner under a double jeopardy, and secondly, companyducting investigation in that case without that investigation being under the companyrts supervision and companytrol.
N. Goswami, for the petitioner.
The first ground was that on November 13, 1970 he, together with some others, companymitted theft of companyper traction wire from a wagon lying in Naihati South Yard, and that when the railway police and the railway protection force on duty rushed at the spot, the petitioner and his associates threw bombs at them with intent to kill them.
11, dated November 23, 1970 under sees.
The grounds of detention served on him at the time of his arrest narrated three incidents in which he was said to have been involved.
were said to have clashed with another group.
