# BIRAM CHAND v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH _&ORS

- **Citation:** [1974] 3 S.C.R. 813
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-09-03
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 23 of 1974
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, P. K. Goswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/biram-chand-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-6085
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

.
.
.. :
'
813
Jt.laintellance of lntemal Security Act, 1971, S. 3 (I)(a) (iii)-Detention when
prosemtion is. pending on the same facts-Validity.
.
·
The petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Varanasi,
U.P. under Sec. 3(1) (a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971,
with a view to preventing hjm from acting ·in any manner ,prejudicial to the
maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
Un the questions, whether, when some ot the gmunds furntshed by the detain·
ing authority form the subject-matter of trial rn criminal cases which are still
mb-judice, the detention would be valid, and whether tbe detenu can be said to
be reasonably able to make an effective representation against those grounds :
HELD : (a) In the case of preventive detention the grounds must be clear
and de.Jinlt~ to enable.the detenu to make a real and effective representation to
the Government to establish his. innocence.
[818 q
(b) Being faced with a criminal prosecution in a . trial which is pending
against him,_ although, the detenu has not got a proper and reasonable opportunity in accordance with law to make an effective . representation against the
in1pugned order of detention covered by the said pr~ding, because, by dis·
clt>sing his defence and cet1ain facts Jte would be- handicapped in defending himself in the criminal court. [818 B-DJ
·
(c) On_ the question. whether i~ is open to the detaining authority to choose
tw_o parallel. proceedings against the detenu held that the fact that the ground of
detention could be a subject matter of criminal p~ecution is not enough to
\·itiate a detention- order if the detaining authority does not choose to prosecute
him but only passes an order of detention. in accordance wtth law. The choke
of the- authority. concerned for the, mode of tackling the illegal activity cannot
per se be illegal and the order of detention is to be judged on its merits. The
position however will 1.1~ entirely different if the authority concerned makes an
order of. det~ntion, uni!er, the Act and also prosecutes. him in a criminal case on
the self-same facts.· Tbe detaining authority cannot take recourse to two parallel
and simultaneou~ proceedings nor can take recourse to a wound which is the
subject matter of a criminal trial: [818 D-G]
·.
·
·
.
(dJ Under the Act. the. decision of the authorities is subj~c~ive one and if
one of the !,'fOUnds. is non-existent or irrelevant' or is not available under the Jaw
the entire detention order will· f:l.ll since it is not possible to ·predicate as to
whether the de[aining aut!J.ority would have m;ufe an order of detention even in
tJ:e absence of the non-ex.istent or, irrelevant ground [819 C·E]
.-
(e) Although the aim and object of the order of detention would be laudable
and the antecedents of a detenu be extremely reproachable, yel, it is essential that
if it is desired to detain a person without trial, .the auth01it1es concerned should
conform to the requirements of' the Jaw. The shady antecedents of the detenu
cannot provide. a JUStification for:· non-t.:ompliance with the mandatory provisions.
The scope of the inquiry in the case of preventive detention bast:d upon subjective satisfaction being necessarily narrow und limited; the scrutiny of the comt
has to he even stricter than in a normal case of puni!ive trial. [819 E·FJ
In the present case, if the District Magistrate had not at all taken recourse to
the facts of the criminal cases pending against the detenu in Bihar in coming to
a conclusion about. his reasonable satisfaction for making the order of detention
the matter would have been different.
But it is clear that the District Magistrate
has been influenced by the existence of the criminal nrosecutions in Bihar and
he has chosen those J:rOtl!lds to furnish as aids to his satisfaction in order to make
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 3 S.C.R.
an _orde! of _detention. The gro':'nds wit~ reference to the pending crin1inal pros

## Text

B
l
~
i
c
D
E
·G
-...
H
BIRAM CHAND
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH _&ORS.
1\--larch 28. 1974 ·
[H. R. KHANNA AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.]
.
.
.. :
'
813
Jt.laintellance of lntemal Security Act, 1971, S. 3 (I)(a) (iii)-Detention when
prosemtion is. pending on the same facts-Validity.
.
·
The petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Varanasi,
U.P. under Sec. 3(1) (a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971,
with a view to preventing hjm from acting ·in any manner ,prejudicial to the
maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
Un the questions, whether, when some ot the gmunds furntshed by the detain·
ing authority form the subject-matter of trial rn criminal cases which are still
mb-judice, the detention would be valid, and whether tbe detenu can be said to
be reasonably able to make an effective representation against those grounds :
HELD : (a) In the case of preventive detention the grounds must be clear
and de.Jinlt~ to enable.the detenu to make a real and effective representation to
the Government to establish his. innocence.
[818 q
(b) Being faced with a criminal prosecution in a . trial which is pending
against him,_ although, the detenu has not got a proper and reasonable opportunity in accordance with law to make an effective . representation against the
in1pugned order of detention covered by the said pr~ding, because, by dis·
clt>sing his defence and cet1ain facts Jte would be- handicapped in defending himself in the criminal court. [818 B-DJ
·
(c) On_ the question. whether i~ is open to the detaining authority to choose
tw_o parallel. proceedings against the detenu held that the fact that the ground of
detention could be a subject matter of criminal p~ecution is not enough to
\·itiate a detention- order if the detaining authority does not choose to prosecute
him but only passes an order of detention. in accordance wtth law. The choke
of the- authority. concerned for the, mode of tackling the illegal activity cannot
per se be illegal and the order of detention is to be judged on its merits. The
position however will 1.1~ entirely different if the authority concerned makes an
order of. det~ntion, uni!er, the Act and also prosecutes. him in a criminal case on
the self-same facts.· Tbe detaining authority cannot take recourse to two parallel
and simultaneou~ proceedings nor can take recourse to a wound which is the
subject matter of a criminal trial: [818 D-G]
·.
·
·
.
(dJ Under the Act. the. decision of the authorities is subj~c~ive one and if
one of the !,'fOUnds. is non-existent or irrelevant' or is not available under the Jaw
the entire detention order will· f:l.ll since it is not possible to ·predicate as to
whether the de[aining aut!J.ority would have m;ufe an order of detention even in
tJ:e absence of the non-ex.istent or, irrelevant ground [819 C·E]
.-
(e) Although the aim and object of the order of detention would be laudable
and the antecedents of a detenu be extremely reproachable, yel, it is essential that
if it is desired to detain a person without trial, .the auth01it1es concerned should
conform to the requirements of' the Jaw. The shady antecedents of the detenu
cannot provide. a JUStification for:· non-t.:ompliance with the mandatory provisions.
The scope of the inquiry in the case of preventive detention bast:d upon subjective satisfaction being necessarily narrow und limited; the scrutiny of the comt
has to he even stricter than in a normal case of puni!ive trial. [819 E·FJ
In the present case, if the District Magistrate had not at all taken recourse to
the facts of the criminal cases pending against the detenu in Bihar in coming to
a conclusion about. his reasonable satisfaction for making the order of detention
the matter would have been different.
But it is clear that the District Magistrate
has been influenced by the existence of the criminal nrosecutions in Bihar and
he has chosen those J:rOtl!lds to furnish as aids to his satisfaction in order to make
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 3 S.C.R.
an _orde! of _detention. The gro':'nds wit~ reference to the pending crin1inal prose·
CUh~?ns 10 Bihar could not provide a valid basis for making the order of detention
particularly because those cases are ·pending trial in Bihar and in view of the
decision of the Patna High Court in connection with one of them. Hence the
detention order is invalid. [8 t,9 A-C]
Mohd. Salim Khan v. Shri C. C. Bose, Deputy Secretary to the Government
of Wt>st Bt>ntal and anotllu, A.l.R. 1972 S.C. 1670/1672 di8tinauished.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 23 of 1974.
Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Frank Anthony and K. B. Rohtagi for the Petitioner.
D. P. {!niyal, R. Bana and 0. P. Rana for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GoswAMI, J.-This habeas corpus petition un9.er Article 32 of the
Constitution of India is directed against the order of the District
Magistrate, Varanasi, of 3rd September, 1973, whereby .the petitioner
was detained under sub-section (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (l)
of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (briefly
the Act) , The order has been _Passed "with a view to preventing him
from. acting in any manner' prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies
and services essential to the community".
The grounds of detention
were served on the petitioner on 7th September, 1973. Leaving out
the prefatory and descriptive portions, the ~:rounds of detention may
be S<:t out as under :-
Ground No. 3 : "That you and your other associates have
been char~:e sheeted by Mohania Police on 28-11-66 for the
offence punishable under section 7 F.C. Act and 125 DIR
1962 and the case is 'till pending in the Court, Magistrate of
Bhabhua (Bihar) ~s the proceedings have been stayed by
the orders of the High. Court, Patna".
Ground No. 4 : "Tha·t with a view to continue your
anti-social activities and to save yourself from the clutches
of law you have started a firm under the name and style of
M/s Shyam Sunder Ashok Kumar, in Mohalla Machchodari
P. S. Kotwali, Varanasi City some time in the year 1966 or
1967 and you have purposely associated your minor son
Ashok Kumar, your brother Shyam Sunder and a lady of
your family as partners in the said firm only in name while,
in fact, you are actively transacting the entire business of the
said firm to carry on the illegal activities".
Ground No, 5 : "That taking undue advantage of
the
acute shortage of the foodgrains in the state due to the failure
of the rains disrupt the fair
and
equitable
distribution
amongst the public you have succeeqed
in getting large
quantity of maize, bajra and jawa_r an? smuggled ~to and
stored in your goodown at Mohama (B1har), a non-producing area of these foodgrains in the State of Bihar, just on the
border of U.P. through yo.ur said firm which will be evidenced
~the facts given below:-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
-B
BIRAM CHAND V.-.U.P. STATE (Goswami, J.)
815.
lhen follows a det_ailed list of sales of bajra, jawar and maize to
numerous persons as .per, cash memos mentioned-therein showing.sales.
on 21~6-197jt 26-6-1973, 7-7-1973, 16-6-1973 and 16-7-1973:
'
- Ground -No. 6 : "That the persons named above are
neither foodgrains 'Arhatias' nor retail shopkeepers either at
Chandsuli Bazar or in · Chandsuli ·village".
Ground No. 7: "That the aforesaid sales are fictitious -
and have been show,n with a view to smuggle bajra, jawar
and maiie to Bihar ·from where enough quantities of b~jra
and. j~war ~ave been booked by rail to Delhi and Pooha as
shown below:-
Then is given a list of various bookings ·o£225 bags of jwar to
Delhi, 116 bags of bajra to Poona, 1 50 bags of bajra to Poona, 220
C
bags of bajra· to P9.ona and 22_? bags of jawar to Poona and even railway wagon numbers are mentioned.
·
0
E
F
G
H
Thi 7th groUJ)d ends as under:-
"All these consignments were booked to self.
The
consigners of all these consignments were searched at
Mohania on the address given in the railway records but no
such persons or Bbandar were available on that address.
Enquires show that you were the person behind these transactions";
Ground No. 8 : "That five trucks bearing registration
No. UPF 2039, USF 3253, UPF 2927, USS 7745.p.nd UPF
2015 loaded with jawar and bajra were apprehended by
Mohania Police on 2-3-1973 (2/3 July 1973?) on the
ground that all the trucks belonged to Uttar Pradesh and the
jawar and bajra loaded on them were being smuggled from
U.P. to Bihar at your instance".
Ground No. 9 : "That 3 bags of ri~ No. 2, 499 bags
gram, 70 bags of 'Matar' and 90 ba~ of 'Dal matar' were
found short on the actual verification of the stock of finn
Shyam Suitdei Ashok Kumar on 17-7~1973 ·by Deputy
Regional Marketing Officer, V aranasi (Enforcement)".
Ground No. 10 : "That the firm Shyam Sunder Askok
Kumar have not maintained any stock register and satta
~hai since 1~70 of oil-seeds and oil-seeds product but at _the
ttme of checkt,ng on 17-7.,.73, 30S bags of 'Tisi' and 10 bags
of 'Sarson' were found":
·
, Ground No. ll : "In view of the aforesaid mentioned
gr~unds I am 5!ltisfied that the activities carried on by you
are such as to mterfere with the scheme underlying the
Essential Commodities Act and the Movement
Orders
promulgated by Government under the above Act in a
man.ner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and
Services essential to the community and it is necessary to
detain you,.
9-L84Sup.C.I. /15
•
:.·,.
\ .. \
-\
: ·,~
··
' .
'· .. ::~·
SlG
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974j 3 S.C.R.
The petltioner applie? t? the High. Cour~ of Allahabad under
Article 226 of the Consututton read wtth sectton 49.1 of the Cod!! 0;
Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of detentton and the same
was dismissed by the Divtsion Bench on 26th :t;fovembe~, 1973. The
petitioner obtained special leave to appeal agams~ the judgm~:n.t . on
19th December 1973 and the same has been regtsterC'.ri as Ctrtmtnal
Apeal No. 231' of 1973. The petition~r also filed writ pc~iti~n No.
23 of 1974 before this Court under Arttcle 32 of the ConstttUlton on
20th December, 1973, against the order of t~e State Government of
21st November, 1973, confirming the afor~~td or?er of detention
under section 12 ( 1 ) of the Act and rule mst was
tssued on 31st
January,_1974. Both the matters arc heard together and are dispo~ed
of by this common judgment.
On behalf of the petitioner, the following submissions arc made
by Mr. Frank Anthony :
(1) There was considerable dday in the Government
disposing of the representation of the dctenu
and
hence it vitiates the detention order.
(2) Ground No. 8 is non-existent and irrelevant and
hence it vitiates the detention order.
(3) Some grounds furnished by the detaining authority
arc the subject matters of criminal case:; which arc
still sub judice.
( 4) Two remote plst incidents of th;: detcnu
arc made
the basi~ of·somc grounds of detention.
c
0
Alt[Jough Mr. Anthony made a strong p!c:a on the lir~t gr0unJ
£
r.!garding delay in forwarding the reprcscntJtion of the detenu to the
Government and in its ultimate dispor.al, we will first take up his thirJ
~ubmi-;sion.
.
•
Jr is admitted by Mr. Uniyal, lc:~rncJ counsc.:l for the Star~. that
the Mohania Police Station case rcfcrr.:d to in groun 1 No. 3 i; s ill
pending in the criminal cour~ in ilihar.
He, howcvt'r, ~ub: tlir.~ tha:
);.ro~nd No. 3 is _merely descriptive and is not a ground in itself upon
~h.tch the detcntton order ha> been based..
We may, th~:rdon:, scruttoJ~e the aforesaid submission of Mr. Uniyal.
What is rcfcm:d
IO m ground No. 3 jo; the criminal ca~~.:
und~.:r s~.:ctlon 7 "1f the
Essential Commoditk,~ Act and ruh: 125 of the Ddcncc of India Rule>,
1962. This has_ reference to the fir~t information n·port JoJgcJ by th~
~~~p\!ctor of Pohcl.', Karm Na..,h·a Chcd. Po~t. Camp ~h>hania r\rra~.
Bt~a.r, on the 11th Octoh::r, 196-l (A11ncxurc-P ut pa)!c 137 of the wnt
p.:tJll(ln!.
The relative: chargc-~h!!ct da'cll 2'Jth Novcmb.::r.
!96.6
12k.t~ No~c:mber, 1 ~66 ?) is at 1\nncxurc·O ;tt Page 140 of th.: wnt
P~: lJtton . . fhe charg.-:-~hcc:t h<idf mention'! ahout the saiJ urJcr uf the
~atoa l_f1!!-h Court. It i-;, thcrdorc. ckar that the 3rd gn.>unJ fortn'
t!,!: !.ubJtXt ~<~tt~r of a Cr.imin;tl trial which is ~>till sub juJice. The
\.h..trl'~~.l~l·ct md~catc' manrfold ,inter-stat..: ilkgal activities of the ·~~~~
vr ~-~ .' Sh) c~m Sund~·r A~hok Kumar of ·Mohania uttractin~t the r-1 •11
llr(J\,'wm'. ,,t _tho.: E~:.~·nti.al Cu:nmoditk~ Act and th.: Dd..:n~.: of InJlil
RvL ~ h~\Jd~:' other sect tons of the lndiatt Pcual Cllllc.
1t is bccau' c
F l
G
Jl
B
c
0
E
c
H
BIRAM CHAND V. U.P. STA'fE (Goswami, J.)
817
of this 3rd ground tl'!at the 4th ground has been worded in the way
it has been done, namely, "that with a view to continue your anti-social
activities and to save yourself from the clutches of law you have started
a finn under the name and style of M/S Shy~ Su~dcr Asbok
Kumar .... ".
We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of
Mr. Uniyal that ground No. 3 is merely descriptive i!ild is not germane
with regard to the order of detention. On the other hand, there
i~
great force in the submission of Mr. Anthony that ground No. 3 is
the corncr~stone of ground No. 4. It is clear that ground No. 3
is
covered by a prosecution in the criminal court which is pending trial
in Bihar.
It shoulq be mentioned here that the High Court of
Palna in
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction cases Nos. 39 and 40 of 1965 by order
dated 21st August, 1965, quashed an order of detention of the
petitioner made on 1 9th July, 1 965, based on the allegation~ in the
same first information report of 1 lth October, 1964, of Mohania Police
Station under section 7 of ihe Essential Commodities A::t, 1955 and
various other sections of the Indian Penal Code. The. iJcntical facts arc
now relied upon .in ground No: 3.
Again ground No. 8 is also the ~ubject matter of criminal case with
reference to the first information report of 3rd July 1973 (Annexure
12 at page 288 of the writ petition).
There is no c9ntroversy that the
said criminal case is still pending.
Similarly grounds Nos. 9 and 10 arc covered by a criminal case
with reference to first information report dated 5th August, 1973 and
the relative charge-sheet dated 19th September, 1973 under section
317 of the Essential Commodities Act, pending in the criminal court
at Varanasi (U.P.).
We arc informed that there is no direct authority o[ this Court on
the point. Mr. Uniyal has, however, drawn .our attention to a decision
of this Court in Mohd. Salim Klum v. Shri C. C. Bf)se, [)eput}' Sec:relllr.''
to the Government of West BenRal a11d another,(
1
) to which one of
us (Brother Khanna) was a party. The decision is clearly distinguish~
able as will be clear from the following excerpt from the same :-
"The mere fact, however. that criminal proceedings in
connection with the same incidents had been adopted against
the petitioner and he had been discharged by the trying
Magistrate docs not mean that no valid order of Jctclltion
~o~ld be passed again!>t him in connection with those very
mc1dcnts, or that such an order can for that reason be
ch~ractcrisc~ as mala fide. ll might well be that a magistrate
trymg a parttcular person under the Code of Criminal Procc~
rlure. ha~ insufllcicnt cviJcnce before him, and, thcr.::forc, has
to. d1schar~c such a person. · B~tt the detaining authorities
m•ght well feel that though there was not sullicicnt evidence
admissible under the Evidence Act for a conviction
the
activities of that person, which they had hcen watching,' were
Ill AIR 1972SC 1670,'167.:.
\
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{1974] 3 S.C.R
of such .a nature as to justify an order of de_tention. From the
mere fact,· therefore,· that the
Magis~ate discharged the
petitioner from the criminal ~ase lodged against him It cannot
be· said that· the impugned: ~rder was incompetent, nor can
iLbe inferred that it was' without a basis or mala fide.
See
Sahib Singh Dugal v. Union of India"(!).
In the above premises, more tltan one question may arise for consideration with regard to the third submission of Mr. Anthony.
\
· Firstly by whether the detenu can be said to be reasonably able to
make an effective representation against this ground when he has been
fadng a trial in the criminal courts. By disclosing his defence and
cert~Un,facts, can he not complain that he will be handicapped in defend_
-ing;himself in the criminal courts? · It iS well settled that in a case of
preventive detention the grounds must be clear and definite to enable
the detenu to make an effective representation to the Government to
induce the authorities. to take a view in his favour. He must, therefore,
have a real and affective opportunity to make his representation to
establish his innocence.
Being faced with a: criminal
prosecution
which is pending against him all through, we are clearly of the view
that the . detenu has not got a proper and reasonable opportunity in
accordance with Jaw to make an effective representation against the
impugned order of detention covered by the said proceeding.
Secondly, the question is whether it is open to the detaining authority
to choose two parallel proceedings against the detenu as in this case.
The fact that the ground of detention could be a subject matter of
criminal prosecution is not enough to vitiate a detention order if the
detaining authority does not choose to prosecute him and only passes
an open trial.
The choice of the authority concerned for the mode of
nr> answer that the detenu must be prosecuted in the criminal court in
an open trial. The choice of the authority concerned for the mode of
tackling the illegal activity cannot per se be illegal and the order of
detention will be judged on its merits in accordance with the Jaw laid
down by this Court. The position will be, however, entirely different
if the authority concerned makes an order of detention under the Act'
and also prosecutes him in a criminal case on the self-same facts. This,
in our view, is totally barred. The detaining authority cannot take
recourse to two parallel and simultaneous proceedings nor can take
recourse to a ground which is the subject ma~ter of a criminal trial as
in the case of the first information report dated 5th August,
1973
furnishing the grounds 9 and 10 of the detention order.
That fact
itself introduces a serious infirmity in the order of detention for which
the same must be held to be invalid.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
: Similarly it is obvious that two of the cases are pending in the
criminal courts in Bihar. But it is also clear, as noted above, that the
Patna High Court had quashed the order of detention of the Government of Bihar based on facts relating to the first information report of
11th October, 1964, although on grounds different from those which we
H
are now considering. If the District Magistrate in the instant case had
(I) [1966] (I) SCR 313 quoted in ATR 1972 SC 1670.
\
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
.·
BIRAM CHAND V. U.P. STATE (Goswami, J.)
819
not at all taken recourse to the facts of the criminal cases pending against
the detenu in Bihar in coming ·to the conclusion about his reasonable
satisfaction for making an order of detention, the matter would have
bten different. It is clear that the District Magistrate has been influenced
by the existence of the criminal prosecutions in Bihar and he has chosen
those grounds to furnish as aids to his satisfaction in order to make the
order of detention. We are clearly of the view that the grounds with
reference to the pending criminal prosecutions in Bihar could not provide •
a valid basis for maki1'lg the impugned order of delentiori, panicularly
because those cases are pending trial in the criminal courts in Bihar and
in view of the decision of the Patna High Court in connection with one
of these cases. Since the detention order is based on these grounds,
the same must be held to be invalid. The third submission of the learned
counsel, is, therefore, accepted.
It is well settled that in an order under the present Act the decision
of the authority is a subjective· one and if one of the' grQunds is nonexistent or irrelevant or is not available under the law,
the· entire .
detention order will fall since it is not possible to predicate as to whether·
the detaining authority/ would have made an order for detention even
in the absence of non1xistent or irrelevant ground. The conclusion is,
therefore, irresistible, in this case that the impugned order is invalid
and tlte detention in this case must be held to be illegal.
As too many cooks spoil the broth so also too many grounds may
vitiate an order of detention if any one of them is irrelevant or non·
.existent.
The authority, therefore, has to be careful enough to see
that. only relevant and valid grounds arc selected having a nexus with
the object of the order of detention.
Although the aim and object
of tile order of detention be laudable and the antecedents of a detenu
be extremely reproachable yet it is essential that if it is desired to
detain a person without trial, the authorities concerned should confor:m
to the requlrements of the law. The shady antecedents of the dctenu
cannot provide a justification for non-compliance with the mandatory
provisions. The scope of the inquiry in the case of preventive detention
based upon
subj~ctive satisfaction being necessarily narrow and
tlimited, the scrutiny of the court has to be even stricter than in
a
normal case of punitive trial.
Since we have held the order of detention as invalid for the reasons
given above, it is not necessary to deal with the other grounds submitted by Mr: Anthony. The writ petition and the appeal are al1owed.
The judgment of the Allahabad High Court is set aside and in the
view we have taken we do not feel called upon to pronounce upon the
variou_s .n;asons given by the High C?~rt in rejecting the petition. The
rule msz ts made absolute. The petitioner shall be released forth with
from the jail unless he is required in
any other case. Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No. 318 of 1974-is allowed.
The application.
for taking additional papers on record is rejected.
V.P.S.
Petition allowtd~ ..
·.: