The State itself companyld number support the said highhandedness.
The validity of the order is challenged on the following companytentions.
The trial was hurried through and the said Carlos was companyvicted.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 9th August 1955 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No.
The detaining authority,in exercising its power, failed to apply its mind to the existence or otherwise of the legitimate objects of detention.
Between April, 1955 to June, 1955, there occurred certain incidents which were inspired and instigated by the members of the Goan Action Committee who were agitating against Portuguese hold over Goa.
Immediately following the searches, the appellant was taken into illegal police custody and interrogated, and physically assaulted, and threatened.
Political and Services Department.
There was a raid on certain pro Portuguese presses by some private persons, in the companyrse of which heavy damage was caused.
726 of 1955.
R. Parpia, J. B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, for the appellant.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, B. Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
In respect of these two incidents private companyplaints had been filed by or on behalf of the affected persons.
On his own showing, he was companycerned over the political future of Goa and was opposed to any attempts at intimidation of Indian residents of Goan origin by other political groups and has freely expressed these views in his journalistic articles.
It was passed for the ulterior purpose of preventing his freedom of speech and freedom of professional activity in the sphere of Goan affairs by reason of his known views in this behalf.
It appears that he was also interested in journalism and in public affairs.
In pursuance of section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 Act IV of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act the grounds of detention, also dated the 8th June, 1955, was served on him along with the order of detention.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
O R D E R. Whereas the Government of Bombay is satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Lawrence Joachim Joseph DeSouza of Bombay, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the relations of India with the Portuguese Government and to the Security of India, it is necessary to make the following Order Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub clause 1 of clause a of sub section 1 of section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 Act IV of 1950 the Government of Bombay is pleased to direct that Shri Lawrence Joachim Joseph DeSouza of Bombay, be detained.
The grounds of detention are vague.
Under Secretary to the Government of Bombay.
He was arrested on the 9th June, 1955, and is in detention since then under the impugned order, which runs as follows No.
Notwithstanding that order, the materials so illegally seized were returned only on or about the 21st January, 1955.
These events happened between February to April, 1955.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHADAS J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing an application made to it under article 226 of the Constitution.
By Order and in the name of the Governor of Bombay.
As a result, the High Court directed on the 3rd November, 1954, the return forthwith of all the papers and articles seized.
When one Joaquim Carlos, a Portuguese soldier attached to Goan forces, was arrested on a charge of entering Indian territory without the requisite authority, the appellant rendered professional assistance to him and obtained an order of release on bail from the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, which was foiled by the police by removing him away to Sawantwadi before the requisite sureties companyld be obtained at Bombay.
The order of detention was mala fide.
P. D. A. 1555A. Political and Services Department, Secretariat, Bombay, 8th June, 1955.
But on appeal, filed by the appellant, before the Sessions Judge, the companyviction was set aside and retrial ordered.
The challenge to the validity of the order based on the attack of mala fides and number application of the, mind of the detaining authority, have been urged before us with great insistence.
April 24.
There was also an assault on himself appellant by a gang of persons of whom some were employees of the Goan Action Committee.
He was in the Indian Air Force as an emergency Commissioned Officer between 1943 to 1948 and thereafter on extension for another four years until he attained the age of 55.
On the same day, a search was carried out by the police also at his residence at Mahim but numberhing was found.
But under the guise thereof the police seized and carried away a mass of documents, papers and printed material of the appellant as also a typewriter belonging to him.
These proceedings relate to the validity of an order of detention passed by the Government of Bombay on the 8th June, 1955, against the appellant before us, who is an Advocate of the High Court of Bombay having a standing of about thirty years.
126 of 1955.
The above high handed action of the police, by way of search and seizure, was the subject matter of challenge by the appellant by means of a writ application in the High Court in which the police officers companycerned filed affidavits virtually admitting the appellants allegations relating to seizure of papers, etc.
