# ANAL CHANDRA BANARJEE v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 348
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-02-02
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 274 of 1971
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/anal-chandra-banarjee-v-the-state-of-west-bengal-5545
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Preventive detention-Vagueness of ground--Omission to nzention
locality
where incident occurred--Or-Specify the group
lvith
which
1he petitioner came into clash-Petitioner prevented
froni
effectivel_v
making representation-West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities)
Act, 1970.
The petitioner was detained under s. 3 (i) and (iii) of the West Beng:il
(Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970.
The first and the second
ground of detention served on him mentioned two incidents of t\left and
throwing of bombs with intent to kill said to have been dommitted in the
yard of Naibati Railway Station. The third and the last ground was that
on January 13, 1971 between 12 and 12.20 hrs. the petitioner along with
his associates "being armed with bombs, swoh:ls, lathis, etc. entered in a
clash with another group with a view to kill them" and that bis "violent
activities cre.ated a serious panic in the Ststion area ruid disturbed public
ordel'." The petitioner contended, inter alia that ground No. 3 was vague
and uncertain and was couched in such indefinite langll'!lge that it would
be itppossible for the petitioner to effectively make a representation and
therefore his detention was invalid.
In his representation the petitioner
had merely denied all the three grounds and maintai.ned toot he had no
concern with any of the three incidents alleged in the grounds of detention.
In bis written arguments submitted to this Court the petitioner
stated that the allegations in respect of all the grounds were made against
him by the Naib:i.ti Railway Police and that they were false. In the reply
affidavit. of the state the averment for the first time made was that the
alleged incident ·in ground No. 3 took place not in Naibati Railway Station
area but at another railway station.
Allowing the petition,
HELD : (I) Ground No. 3 is vague by reason of its om1Ss1on to
mention the locality. It is clear that the petitioner was under the impression, in the absence of the place or the locality where the incident was
A
ll
c
D
E
F
said to have taken place having been mentioned, th~t the said incident
had taken place either in Naibati Railway Station or the area under the
jurisdiction of Naibati police. Therefore, apart from ground No. 3 beina
vague by reason of its omission to mention the locality, there was in the
context of the other two grounds a likclthood of the petitloneir being under
G
a wrong impression that •<!'Ording to the District Magistrate the incident
there alleged had taken place in the Naibati Railway Station area. That
being so, the omilision to· mention the IOC21ity prevented. the petitioner
from effectively making a representation. [352 DJ
(2) Tlie omission to specify the group with whom the petitioner and
his a5sociates came into clash also renders that ground vague and indefinite, resulting once again in disabling the petitioner from effectively making
H
a representation. [352 BJ
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 274 of 1971.
•
•
A
B
c
A. c. BANERJEE v. WEST BENGAL (She/at, J.)
~49
Under f\rticle 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the
nature of habeas corpus.
N. N. Goswami, for the petitioner.
D. N. Mukherjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
The Judgment or the Court was delivered by
Shela!, J. The order of detention, dated April 7, 1971, passed
a,llainst the petitioner ho~rein and in pursuance of which· the petitioner was arrested and detained in jail the next day, recites that
it was passed under sec .. ~ ( 1) and (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention -of Violent Acilvitj_es) Act, President's Act 19 of 1970,
!he ground for which was' tlfa~ the District Magisll'll'te, 24 Parganas, who Jl\ISSed it, was satisfied that it was necessary to detain
the petitioner with a view to prevent him from- acting in a manner
· · i:>rejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
D
E
F
.G
H
The grounds of detention sel'Vect on him at the time of his
arrest narrated three incidents in which he was said to have been
involved.
The fir

## Text

348
ANAL CHANDRA BANARJEE
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
February 2, 1972
[J. M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
Preventive detention-Vagueness of ground--Omission to nzention
locality
where incident occurred--Or-Specify the group
lvith
which
1he petitioner came into clash-Petitioner prevented
froni
effectivel_v
making representation-West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities)
Act, 1970.
The petitioner was detained under s. 3 (i) and (iii) of the West Beng:il
(Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970.
The first and the second
ground of detention served on him mentioned two incidents of t\left and
throwing of bombs with intent to kill said to have been dommitted in the
yard of Naibati Railway Station. The third and the last ground was that
on January 13, 1971 between 12 and 12.20 hrs. the petitioner along with
his associates "being armed with bombs, swoh:ls, lathis, etc. entered in a
clash with another group with a view to kill them" and that bis "violent
activities cre.ated a serious panic in the Ststion area ruid disturbed public
ordel'." The petitioner contended, inter alia that ground No. 3 was vague
and uncertain and was couched in such indefinite langll'!lge that it would
be itppossible for the petitioner to effectively make a representation and
therefore his detention was invalid.
In his representation the petitioner
had merely denied all the three grounds and maintai.ned toot he had no
concern with any of the three incidents alleged in the grounds of detention.
In bis written arguments submitted to this Court the petitioner
stated that the allegations in respect of all the grounds were made against
him by the Naib:i.ti Railway Police and that they were false. In the reply
affidavit. of the state the averment for the first time made was that the
alleged incident ·in ground No. 3 took place not in Naibati Railway Station
area but at another railway station.
Allowing the petition,
HELD : (I) Ground No. 3 is vague by reason of its om1Ss1on to
mention the locality. It is clear that the petitioner was under the impression, in the absence of the place or the locality where the incident was
A
ll
c
D
E
F
said to have taken place having been mentioned, th~t the said incident
had taken place either in Naibati Railway Station or the area under the
jurisdiction of Naibati police. Therefore, apart from ground No. 3 beina
vague by reason of its omission to mention the locality, there was in the
context of the other two grounds a likclthood of the petitloneir being under
G
a wrong impression that •<!'Ording to the District Magistrate the incident
there alleged had taken place in the Naibati Railway Station area. That
being so, the omilision to· mention the IOC21ity prevented. the petitioner
from effectively making a representation. [352 DJ
(2) Tlie omission to specify the group with whom the petitioner and
his a5sociates came into clash also renders that ground vague and indefinite, resulting once again in disabling the petitioner from effectively making
H
a representation. [352 BJ
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 274 of 1971.
•
•
A
B
c
A. c. BANERJEE v. WEST BENGAL (She/at, J.)
~49
Under f\rticle 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the
nature of habeas corpus.
N. N. Goswami, for the petitioner.
D. N. Mukherjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
The Judgment or the Court was delivered by
Shela!, J. The order of detention, dated April 7, 1971, passed
a,llainst the petitioner ho~rein and in pursuance of which· the petitioner was arrested and detained in jail the next day, recites that
it was passed under sec .. ~ ( 1) and (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention -of Violent Acilvitj_es) Act, President's Act 19 of 1970,
!he ground for which was' tlfa~ the District Magisll'll'te, 24 Parganas, who Jl\ISSed it, was satisfied that it was necessary to detain
the petitioner with a view to prevent him from- acting in a manner
· · i:>rejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
D
E
F
.G
H
The grounds of detention sel'Vect on him at the time of his
arrest narrated three incidents in which he was said to have been
involved.
The first ground was that on November 13, 1970 he,
· together with some others, committed theft of copper 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.
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 frogi doing so, the petitioner ljnd his said associates threw
bombs at them with intent to kill tllem. The third and the las!
grourid was as follows :
''That oil 13-1-71 in . between 12.00 and 12.20
hours, you alon11; with your associaties
being armed
with bombs, swords, lathis, etc. entered in a clash with
another E!OUP with a view to kill them. Your violent
aotlvities created a serious panic in the station area and
disturbed the public order."
Fro~ ilie Dym Dum Central 1 ail where the petitioner was
det$ed 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 Boatd, who it appears,
also heard the petitioner in person. · 'l)o representation, dated
April 29, 1971 was in ~oneral terms .in which the petitioner
denied the said grounds alleged against himi and maintained that
ho was a law 'abidin11; citir.en who never indulged in activities of
·the kin~~Red a11;ainst him. The Board, after ~sldering the
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 s.c.R.
said represe11tation, the said record of <the case and after hearing
him, as aforesaid, reported that there was, in its opinion, sufficient
cause for his deten1ion. It seems that thereupon 1the Government
confirmed the said detention order and directed continuation of
bis detention thereunder. So far there does not appear to be any
difficulty as all the steps following the petitioner's arrest appear
to have been taken by the detaining authority in compliance with
the provisions of the Act.
But two questions have been raised before us on behalf of
the petitioner.
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 counsel during the course of
the hearing of the petition.
The point raised by the petitioner
was in regard to ground No. 2 in the grounds of detention in
which it wa~ alleged that the petitioner participated in the incident
said to have iaken place on December 23, 1970.
The petitioner's
allegation was that on January I, 1971 the Naihati G.R.P. police
appeared beJore the Magistrate, Sealdah, stating that the petiiioner was arrested in a police case referred to as Naihati G.R.P.
Case No. 11, dated November 23, 1970 under secs. 148, 379
and 307 o( !he Penal Code and sec. 6 ( 3) of the Explosive Substances Act, but that the Magistrate, a(ter considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, released him on bail.
That case,
according to the petitioner was still pending. The contention was
that the authorities, having elected to institu'te proceedings against
him under the Code of Criminal Procedure, could not, while those
proceedinl1)S were s!ill pending, also fake parallel p,roceedings ·
under the present Act thereby placing, firstly, the petitioner under
a double jeopardy, and secondly, conducting investigation in that
case witho\!.t that investigation being under the courts supervision and control. The argument was that if the petitioner were
to ~ kept under preventive detention under the present Act it
would not be necessary as it would otherwise ~. for the police to
ask for remand orders and produce the
petrtioner before the
Magistrate whenever such orders were prayed for.
The detention order and the detention thereunder, it was argued, were on
the aforesaid two grounds invalid,
The second conten1ion
concerned 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, Iathis etc. were said to have
clashed wrth another group. In the written arguments submitted
by the petitioner from jail, the petitioner made a general denial
stating that, if such an incident had occurred and he had been
involved in it the police were bound to file a case against him but
that no such case was filed which indicated that he had nothing
to do with -tl)e alleged incident, and had been falsely involved
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
A. C. BANARJEE V. WEST BENGAL (She/at, /.) '
351
in it. Counsel appearing for him raised another point, and that
was that ground No. 3 was vague and uncertain and was couched
in such iμdefipite language that it would be impossible for the
petitioner to eff.ectively make a representation.
We prl)Ceed to consider •this contention first bc:cause in the
view we take concerning it it would not be necessary for us to
go into the contention regarding ground No. 2 of the grounds of
detention.
Ground No. 3, no doubt, specifies the date and the time
when the incident alleged therein was said to have taken place.
It also alleges that the petitioner and his associates were armed
during the alleged incident with weapons such as bombs, swords,
lathis etc., and that they had a clash "with another group", and
that incident "created a
serious panic in the sta!ion
area".
The ground does not state what the authority meant by "another
group", nor does it s!ate in which "station area" the said alleged
incident was said to have taken place resulting in panic.
F
It will be seen that the first and the second grounds mentioned
two incidents of theft said to have been committed in the yard
of the Naib,ati railway siation. The question is, ill Jhe absence
of any particulars as to the place where the incidenf .alleged in
in the !hird ground took place, what would the expression "station
area" mean to the petitioner, and whether the petitioner would not
get the impression that the District Magistrate meant thereby ·
Naihati railway station or Naihati police station area.
In his
representation, the petitioner merely denied all the three grounds
and maintained that he had no concern with any of the three
incidents alleged in the grounds of detention. In his written
arguments submitted to this Court he, firstly, denied having anything to do with the incident of January 13, 1971 a,nd then proceeded to state that all those allegations were made falsely against
him by the Naihati railway police, and that they were false because if the said alleged incidents had in fact occurred, the police
were bound_ to launch proceedings against him.
He further
asserted that at any rate, !he local police, that is, the Naihati
police, were bound· to make some record of them in the general
diary maintained by the said police station. It is, thus, clear tha!
the petitioner was under the impression, in the absence of the
place or the locality where the said incident was said to have taken
place, according to the District Magistrate, either in Naihati railway Station or the area under the jurisdiction of Naiha'.i polk.~
station.
H
Such an impression, it appears, was likely because when read
in the context of the first and the second grounds, the reader of
the third ground in the absence of any particulars as regards the
l0-L887 Sup Cl/72
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972) 3 S.C.ll.
locality where the said allel!;ed incident took place, might well
infer thait the locality there alleged must be Naihati railway station area.
That such was !he impression of the petitioner appears
from the assertion made by him in para 6 of his writren argilments
that the allegations in respect of all the grounds were made against
him by Naihati Railway police, and !hat those were false because
neither they nor the Naihati Police made any ·reference to them
in the l!;eneral diaries maintained by ithem, nor lodged any complaint against him. In para 7 of the affidavit in reply of the
State, the av~rment for the first time made was tha!I: the alleged
incident of January 13, 1971 took place not in Naihati Railway
Station area but at Palta Railway Station which resulted in "panic
in the said station area and disturbed public peace and tranquillity".
Apart, thus, from ground No. 3 in the grounds of detention
beinl!: vague by reason of its omissjon to mention the locality,
there was in the context of the other two grounds a likelihood of
the petitioner. beine; under a wro~ impression that according to
A
B
c
!he District Magistrate the incident there alleged had taken place
0
in Naihati Railway Station area. That being so, it is obvious
that the petitioner could not make a correct and proper representation which must mean that the omissio.n to mention the locality
prevented him from effectively making a representation.
The omission to specify the group with whom the petitioner
and his a_ssociates came into clash also renders fuat ground vague
E .
and indefinite, resulting once ag.ain in disabling the petitioner
from efi'e!:tively making a representation. Suppose that the petitioner wan!ed to maintain that on January 13, 1971 he was never
at or near Palta Railway Station or that the group with whom
he was said to have clashed was his own group or was friendly with
him, and therefore, there was no possibility of any such clash.
He could . not obviously have been able ~o do so in the absence
11
of particμlars about the locality and ithe name or description of
the said 1troup.
The result of those Omissions being to prevent the petitioner
from effectively · making representation, his detention under the
said order must be found to be invalid.
The petition, for the
G
reasons aforesaid,
succeeds and is allowed.
Accordingly we
direct that the petitioner be released from jail and set at liberty
forthwith.
K.B.N.
Petition allowed.
H