# SAMIR CHA1TERJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL - **Citation:** [1975] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 18 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1975-03-21 - **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 4 of 1975 - **Bench:** A. Alagiriswami, N. L. Untwalia - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/samir-cha1terjee-v-state-of-west-bengal-6460 - **Pages:** 12 ## Headnote Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971-Disclwrge of petitioner in cri1ninal ca.~e at the request of police for want of evidence-If could be detained under the Act-Periodic review of cases of detention-If a legal cbligation-- S. 15-Scope of, The petitioner and two of his associates were charged with offcn~es under ss. 451, 324 etc. I.P.C. in one case. In another, the petitioner and three of his associates were charged with offences under ss. 148, 149, 307 etc. l.P.C. In respect of both the cases, however, the police applied before the Magistrate requesting that the petitioner be discharged for his detention under the !\1aint.enance of Internal Security Act, 1971. An order of detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act was then passed against the petitioner and his associates on two grounds name1y (1) that he and his associates reinforced by 25 others formed a violent mob near a workshop manufacturing defence materials and hurled brickbats creating fear, frightfulness and insecurity among the \\'Orkers and the authorities, and (2) fhat he and his associates armed with pistol and hlgh explosive bombs created a great disturbance of public order which resulted in panic and confusion on a public road. The detention orders against the associates were revoked because the Advisory Board reported that there was no sufficient cause for their detention. The petitioner, however, did not appear before the Board and his representation was considered by the State and forwarded to the Advisory Board. His second representation was not forwarded to the Advisory Board. In a petition under A11. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner contended (1) that the provisions of the Mainteflance o.f Internal Security Act had been used as a convenient substitute for the provisions of ordinary law for detaining th!.! petitioner because his discharge was asked for on the ground that he was going to be detained under the Maintena<.:e of Internal Security Act; (2) that the grounds furnished relate to maintenance of law and order and therefore it could not be made the basis of the order of detention; (3) that the detaining authority had not applied his mind to the petitioner's case as shown by the fact that the grounds of detention show that the petitioner had to be discharged from the criminal cases due to v.•ant of sufficient evidence for the successful prosecution whereas the order of discharge showed that he was discharged because he was going to be detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971; (4) that the grounds of detention \Vere vague; (5) that the Government had failed to periodically review the case of the petitioner and that had rendered his continued detention illegal and that this was a case where s. 15 of the Ac~ should have been applied <~nd the petitioner released. Dismissing the petition, HELD: (1) (a) It is not always possible for a Court dealing \vith an habeas corpus petition in the case of a person detainedi under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act to say whether in a case where a criminal case had .been registered against a person and then withdrawn, and he \Vas detained under the provisions of the Act, that was proper or not. The Court is not in possessioO of ;:ill th~ evidence to be able to decide for itself whether the ~osecution \Vould have been successful or not and without those m.'Lterials being available it is not possible for the Court to say that the punitive action should have been taken and not detention. It is the authority conducting the prosecution that would be in a position to decide whether evidence was available which could establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt before the criminal court. Where the authority was not sure that S1:1ch inaterial was available it may not like to face the prospect of the prosecutton ' • SAMIR CHATTERJEE v. WEST BENGAL (Alagiriswami, !.) failing and being charged with vindictiveness or mala fides if thereafter the accused was detained ## Text 18 B c D E F ·G A SAMIR CHA1TERJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL March 21, 1975 [A. ALAGIRISWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971-Disclwrge of petitioner in cri1ninal ca.~e at the request of police for want of evidence-If could be detained under the Act-Periodic review of cases of detention-If a legal cbligation-- S. 15-Scope of, The petitioner and two of his associates were charged with offcn~es under ss. 451, 324 etc. I.P.C. in one case. In another, the petitioner and three of his associates were charged with offences under ss. 148, 149, 307 etc. l.P.C. In respect of both the cases, however, the police applied before the Magistrate requesting that the petitioner be discharged for his detention under the !\1aint.enance of Internal Security Act, 1971. An order of detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act was then passed against the petitioner and his associates on two grounds name1y (1) that he and his associates reinforced by 25 others formed a violent mob near a workshop manufacturing defence materials and hurled brickbats creating fear, frightfulness and insecurity among the \\'Orkers and the authorities, and (2) fhat he and his associates armed with pistol and hlgh explosive bombs created a great disturbance of public order which resulted in panic and confusion on a public road. The detention orders against the associates were revoked because the Advisory Board reported that there was no sufficient cause for their detention. The petitioner, however, did not appear before the Board and his representation was considered by the State and forwarded to the Advisory Board. His second representation was not forwarded to the Advisory Board. In a petition under A11. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner contended (1) that the provisions of the Mainteflance o.f Internal Security Act had been used as a convenient substitute for the provisions of ordinary law for detaining th!.! petitioner because his discharge was asked for on the ground that he was going to be detained under the Maintena<.:e of Internal Security Act; (2) that the grounds furnished relate to maintenance of law and order and therefore it could not be made the basis of the order of detention; (3) that the detaining authority had not applied his mind to the petitioner's case as shown by the fact that the grounds of detention show that the petitioner had to be discharged from the criminal cases due to v.•ant of sufficient evidence for the successful prosecution whereas the order of discharge showed that he was discharged because he was going to be detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971; (4) that the grounds of detention \Vere vague; (5) that the Government had failed to periodically review the case of the petitioner and that had rendered his continued detention illegal and that this was a case where s. 15 of the Ac~ should have been applied <~nd the petitioner released. Dismissing the petition, HELD: (1) (a) It is not always possible for a Court dealing \vith an habeas corpus petition in the case of a person detainedi under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act to say whether in a case where a criminal case had .been registered against a person and then withdrawn, and he \Vas detained under the provisions of the Act, that was proper or not. The Court is not in possessioO of ;:ill th~ evidence to be able to decide for itself whether the ~osecution \Vould have been successful or not and without those m.'Lterials being available it is not possible for the Court to say that the punitive action should have been taken and not detention. It is the authority conducting the prosecution that would be in a position to decide whether evidence was available which could establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt before the criminal court. Where the authority was not sure that S1:1ch inaterial was available it may not like to face the prospect of the prosecutton ' • SAMIR CHATTERJEE v. WEST BENGAL (Alagiriswami, !.) failing and being charged with vindictiveness or mala fides if thereafter the accused was detained preventively. The Court should be slow towards the conclusion that the detenu_ could have been succes.5fully prosecuted in the absence of all the material before it and then going on to criticise the detaining authority for not continuing the prosecution but detaining him. [25D-F1 In the instant cast the fact that an application for discharge was· made by the police would not in any way 'vitiate the grounds of detention or show that the Police Comi:nissioner had no sufficient material before him to be satisfied that the petitioner ought to be detained in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to pubJic order. Want of evidence for successful prosecution is a matter which can be legitimately taken into account by an authority competent to pass an order of detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act for deciding whether he should pass an order of detention against a partiCuiar person. [25H] Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, A.LR. 1974 S.C. 2154; Sri/a/ Shaw v. State of W.B., [1975] I S.C.C. 336; and Sad/11! Roy v. Thr State of Bengal, !1975] 3 S.C.R. 291 referred to. (b) The fact that sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt was not available to the police and for that reason t!J.ey had asked for the discharge of the petitioner did not mean that the detaining authority had not before him evidence on which he could be satisfied. The detaining authority, when he came to know that the petitioner was going to be discharged from the criminal cases for want of sufficient evidence could very we1l take the view that it was necessary for 'the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner, prejudicial to the 1naintenance of public ordet that he Jotbmg to do with the grounds being vague. [27H] . . (5) (a) Periodic~l rev!ew. of a petitioner's detention was not considered by this Court as a legal obligation on the part of the Government nor the failure to do so as making the detention illegal. [28A] 20 A B c oUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] SUPf, S.C.R. Sailesh Dutta v. State of W.B., Al.R. 1974 S.C. 1816 referred to. (b) Section 15 merely confers a power on the Government. The power and duty of this Court is to decide cases coming before it according to law. Jn so doing it may take various considerations into account. But to advise the Government as to how they should exercise their' functions or powers conferred on them by statute i~ not one of this Court's functions. Where the Court is able to give ·effect to its views in the form of a valid and binding order that is a different matter. Furthermore, s. 15 deals with release on parole and there is nothing to show that the petitioner applied for to be released on parole for any specific purpose. Release on parole is made only on the request of th~ party and for a specific purpose. [29B-C] Babu/al Das v. State of W.B. [1975] 1 S.C.C. 311 held inapplicable. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 4 of 1975. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. M. K. Ramamurthi, G. Mukhoty and Rathin Das for the petitioner. D. N. Mukherjee, S. Basu and G. S. Chatterjee for the respondent. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E F G H ALAGIRISWAMI, J .-The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act in pursuance of an order passed by the Commissioner of Police of Calcutta on 24-4-1974. The grounds for detention order are : "l. That at about 05.40 hours on 9-5-73, you along with your associates about 10 in number forcibly scaled over the boundary wall of Garden Reach Workshop, manufacturing defence materials, at 61, Garden Reach Road, Calcutta and when resisted by the Security Staff of the said workshop, you along with your said associates, being reinforced by about 25 others assembled and formed a violent mob on an open plot of land beyond the western boundary wall of the said workshop and incessantly hurled brickbats, which continued till 08.00 hours, aiming at the Security Staff of the said workshop creating serious disturbances there. As a result 3 Security Personnel viz. Gurdit Singh, Ratan Singh and Hasib Khan of the said workshop sustained injuries on their person. at the aforesaid date, time. and place. In consequence, fear, frightfulness and insecurity prevailed amongst the workmen and authorities of the above workshop leading t9 the suspension of defence production for some time in the said workshop in general and in the Drum Plant ( o_f the workshop) in particular which was prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. 2. That at about 12,05 hours on 24-5-73 you along with your associates being armed with pistol and bombs formed an unlawful assembly on Transport Depot Road, Calcutta and created a great disturbance of public order by exploding high explosive bombs on Transport Depot Road, Calcutta near the workers' gate of M/s. Lipton Tea Co. i ~ >- • j • SAMIR CHATTERJEE v. WEST BENGAL (Alagiriswami, !.) 21 at the aforesaid date and time with a view to terrorising A the local people as well as the workers of the said company. As a result of your action, as aforesaid, widespread panic and confusion were created in the above area and thereby affected the maintenance of public order." It appears that in respect of the two incidents mentioned in the two B grounds there were two FIRs filed before the Police. In respect of the first incident it is GR 1036/73 and in respect of the second incident it is GR 1246/73. In .respect of the 1st incident case No. 102 under sections 451, 148, 149 and 324 I.P.C. and section 9 of the West Bengal M.P.O. Act was filed before the Police Magistrate, Alipore against the petitioner, Bibhnti Dutta and Sakti Pada Dutta. In respect of the 2nd C incident case No. 118 under sections 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C., sections 3 and 5 of the Essential Supplies Act and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act was filed before the Police Magistrate, Alipore against the petitioner and three others, Bibhuti Dutta, Sakti Pada Dutta and Raghu Nath Show. On 24-4-1974 in both these cases the Police applied before the Magistrate requesting thaUhe petitioner may be discharged for his detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. The D same action was taken against Bibhuti Dutta and Sakti Pada Dutta also. It, however, appears that detention orders in respect of both Bibhuti Dutta and Sakti Pada Dutta were revoked because the Advisory Board reported that there was no sufficient cause for their detention. It would appear that both of them had appeared before the Advisory Board whereas the petitioner did not. We do not know E whether the non-appearance of the petitioner before the Advisory Board had anything to do with the different result in this case. It should, however, be mentioned that the petitioner did make a representation on 22-5-74 and this representation after it was considered by the State Government was also forwarded to the Advisory Board .which submitted its report on 26-6-74. The detenu made another representation on F 1-7-74 asking for personal hearing but that was not forwarded to the Advisory Board. The validity of the order has been attacked on the following grounds: 1. That the grounds furnished to the petitioner indicate that · G they relate to maintenance of law and order and not the public order and therefore it could not be made the basis of the order of detention . 2. T?at. the ord~r of detention is vitiated as it is based on mcrdents which are not proximate. 3. That the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security ii Act _h~ve been used. as a convenient substitute for the .pr~vrsrons of th~ ordmary lawfor detaining the petitioner. Thrs argument rs based on the following circumstances : (a) that hi~ discharge wa~ asked for _on the. ground that he was gomg to be detamed under M.I.S.A.; 22 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975] SUPP. S.C.R. (b) that the grounds of detention state that the petitioner had to be discharged in the criminal cases due to want of evidence for successful prosecution, while the order of discharge passed by the Magistrate states that it was made as prayed for in the application of the Police ; ( c) that the cases mentioned in the two FIRs are such that the petitioner could have been easily prosecuted nnder the laws of the land ; and ( d) that the petitioner is continued in detention even though Bibhuti Dutta and Saktipada Dutta, who had been ~rrestcd in connection with the same cases as the petitioner and who had been served with identical grounds of detention, had been released on the advice of the Advisory Board. 4. That the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the petitioner's case is shown by the fact that the grounds of detention show that the petitioner had to be discharged from the cases due to want of sufficient evidence for successful prosecution, whereas he was discharged because he was going to be detained, and that the grounds of detention refer to allegations which do not find a place in the FIRs. 5. That the grounds of detention are vague. ' 6. That the Government had failed to periodically review the case of the petitioner and that has rendered his continued detention illegal. 7. That this is a case where section 15 of the Act should have been applied and the petitioner released, and 8. That in any event the petitioner is entitled to a direction for consideration of his second representation dated 1-7-1974. Before we proceed to deal with these points it may be useful _;, and necessary to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench in Hpradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal('). It was observed : "The power of preventive detention. is qualitatively. different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. ,It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detent.ion may .be made before or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of pro~ecuiion is no bar. to an order of preventive ------~- {l) AIR 1974 SC 2154. ·• • ... ,. 1 j SAMIR CHATTERJEE v. WEST BENGAL (Alagiriswami, J.) 23 detention. An order of preventive detention is also not A a bar to prosecution. ·Article 14 is inapplicable because preventive detention and prosecution are not synonymous. The purposes are different. The authorities are different. The nature of proceedings is different. In a prosecution an accused B is sought to be punished for a past act. In preventive detention, the past act is merely the material for foference about the future course of probable conduct on the part of the detenu . . . . . . . The principles which can be broadly stated are these. .First mere\y .. because a detenu . is liable to be tried 1 iii a trim'inai Cburi for ·th·e co\Jmilssion of a criminal offence or to be proceeded against for preventing him from. committing offences dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not by itself debar the Government from taking action for his detention under ·the Act. Second, the fact that the Police arrests a person and later on enlarges him on bail and initiates steps to prosecute ·him under the Code of Criminal Procedure and even lodges a first information _report may be no bar against the District Magistrate iSsuing an order tinder the ·preventive detention. Third, where the concerned person is actually in jail custody at the time when an _order of detention is passed against him and is not likely to be released for a fair length of time, it may be possible to content! that. there could be no satisfaction on the part of the det_aining authority as to the likelihood c D E of such a person indulging . in , activities which would jeopardise the security of the State Q_r the public order. F\mrth, the mere circumstance . that a ·detention order is passed during the pendency of the prosecution will not violate the order. Fiftb, ·the Qrdcr of detention is a precautionary measure. It is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future liehaviour cif a persbn based' pn" bis. past conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances. • F. • • • • G In the case of Madan Lal Agarwala, it is submitted that the . detention order was for a collatei:_al purpose because he was released on_ 26th March, f973, and the detention order was- of the same day. I_t was _also said that onr., incident was said to be the ground in the order of detention· and one incident should not suffice for an order of de- . H tention. The ground given in Madan Lal Agarwal's <:ase is that he in collusion with his father bad hoarded 8 quintals 84 kg. of rice, 2 quintals 88 kg. of flour, and 1 -quintal 96 kg. of suji and further that be had no· licence as 10 SC/75-3 . · · · • ' • 24 A B c D E F G -H SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1975] SUPP. S.C.R. require~ by Sec. 4 of the West Bengal Essential Foodstuffs Anti-Hoarding Oi'der, 1966. The detaining authority said in the grounds : '.'It is apparent in the aforesaid facts thai you in collusion with your father are likely to withhold or impede supply of foodstuffs or ,rationed article : essential to the community". The future behaviour of Madan Lal Agarwal based on his past conduct in the light of surrounding circumstances is the real - ground of detention. It is needless to stress the obvious that Madan Lal Agarwal'sacts are gravely prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community. It was staid In the case of Haradhan Saha that he was released on 25th July, 1973 and he was arrested on 7th August, 1973, pursuant to ·a detention order dated 31st Jtily, 1973. It is, therefore, said that the detention order was passed for collateral purposes. The grounds in the detention order are that on 19th June, 1973, Haradhan Saha with his associates was smuggling 115 bags of rice weighing 93 -quintals 80 kgs. to Calcutta covered by coal by engaging lorry without any valid permit or authority. Haradhan Saha violated the provisions of West Bengal. Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement. by Night) Order, 1969, and West Bengal Rice and Paddy_ (Licensing and Control) Orger, 1967, and tried to frustrate the food and procurement policy of the Gov· ernment. These grounds concluded by stating that Haradhan Saha acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. This again illustrates as to how these detention orders came to be passed to prevent the likelihood of such acts prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community." It appears to us that many of the decisions relied upon by the petitioner have not appreciated the implications of this decision. For instance ·decisions which hold that where there is a possibility of prosecutfog a person he should be prosecuted rather thau dealt with under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act fall under that. category (Sri/al SHaw v. State of W.B.( 1) In the case before the Constitution Bench Madan Lal had no licence as reauired by section 4 of the West Bengal Essential Foodstuffs Anti-Hoarding Order, 1966. So it would have been easy to prosecute him. In the case of H aradhan Saha ( 2 ) he also violated the provisions of West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Restriction on Movement by Night) Order, 1969 and West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 because· he was smuggling rice without any valid permit or autliority. ' (1) !1975J sec 336. ,(2) A.I-R 1974 SC 2154. J '>- • I SAMIR CHATTERJEE v. WEST BENGAL (Alagiriswami, !.) 25 In Sadhu Roy v. The State of Bengal('), it was observed: A "There · are two social implications of dropping prosecutions and resorting to substitutive detentions which deserve to be remembered. Where a grievous crime against the. community has been committed, the culprit must be subjected to condign punishment so that the penal law may B strike a stern blow where it should. Detention is a softer treatment than stringent sentence and there is no reason why a dangerous criminal should get away with it by enjoying an unfree but unpaid holiday. Secondly, if the man is innocent, the process of the law should give him a fair chance and that should not be scuttled by indiscriminate resort to easy but unreal orders of detention unbound by precise time. That is a negation of the correctional humanism of our system and breeds bitterness, alienation and hostility within the case." lt is not always possible for a Court dealing .with an habeas corpus petition in the case of a person detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act to say whether in a case where a criminal case has been registered against a person and then it is withdrawn and he is detained under the provisions of the Act, that is proper or not. The Court is not in possession of all the evidence tci be able to decide for itself whether the prosecution would have been successful or not and without those materials being available it is not possible for the Court to say that the Pl)nitive action ~hould have been taken and not detention. It is the authority conducting the prosecution that would be in a position to decide whether evidence is available which could establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt before the criminal court. Where the authority is not sure that such material is available it mav not like to face the prospect of the prosecution failing and being charged with vindictiveness or ma/a fides if thereafter the accused is detained preventively. The Court should be slow towards the conclusion that the detenu could have been snccessfully prosecuted in the absence of all the material before it and then going on to criticise the detaining authority for not contintiing the prosecution but detaining him. At this point we may conveniently consider point 3 because it logically comes in here. Point 3 c D E F G There is no substance in any one of the contentions in this point. The applicati.on for discharge was made by the Police and it is the Commissioner of Police thaf bad to be satisfied that there · were sufficient grounds for the d.e!entiori of the petitioner. That H would not in any way vitiate the grounds of detention or show that the Commissioner had no sufficient material before him to be satisfied that the petitioner· ought to be detained in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. Want of evidence (1) W.P. No. 429 /74 decided on 22 January; 1975. • --0"'-- ,, .. ~ 26 A B c ~). E F G H •·. · .. $DPREME .CPURT REPORTS [1975] SUPP. s.c.R. for successful prosecution is a matter which can be legitimately taken into account by an authority competent to pass an order of detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act for deciding whether he should pass an order of detention against a particular person. lh the grounds it is said that the petitioner had to be discharged from the criminal cases due to want of evidence for successful prosecution. A criminal case needs evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that such evidence was not available does not mean that the detaining authority had not before him evidence on which he can be satisfied. This would not show that in asking for discharge of the petitioner from the criminal cases the authorities were taking !he easier course of preventive detention rather than prosecuting him under t!)e ordinary law of the land. It is the Police who were· prosecuting the petitioner that had to decide whether there was sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution. The detaining authority when he comes to know \hat the petitioner was going to be discharged from the criminal cases for want of sufficient evidence for successful prosecution can very well take the view that it was necessary for the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public o.rder that he should be detained and if he is satisfied on the evidence available his subjective satisfaction cannot be questioned by this Court. There is. no material to show on what grounds the Advisory Board held that in the case of Bibhuti Dutta and Saktipada Dutta there was not snflicient cause for their continued detention. Merely on the ground that in their case there was not suflic.ient cause it · could not be assumed that there is no sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. Point 1 ··We think that this contention is without substance-. The incident mentioned in the 1st ground took place at 61 Garden Reach Road, Calcutta. The factory where this incident took·place has 5000 workers working in it. The petitioner and his associat·es as weU as 25 others ass\l!jllblcd and formed a violent mob outside the walls of the workshop an.d ·continued· to pelt · brickbats ·for over two hours. 'Apart from the l~rge nqmber of workers working in that factory the inci,dent very clearly took place in a public place. The factory has a. door. number in Garden Reach Road. So it must be a public place wilh members of the public passing to and fro and this incident would have cansed fear and alarm not merely to the persons working in the fa:ctory but also to people passing along the road. In the second ir.cident the petitioner and others were armed with pistol and bombs, exploded the bombs with a view to terrorising the local people as well as the workers and widespread panic and confusion was· created in the above area. Both these incidents, therefore, clearly relate to public order. In respect of (he 1st inddcnt it could not be said. that it related to only a single factory and therefore it does not ·relate to public . order because, as we have . shown' above, it would. have created panic and co11fusion an;ong the _passers-by in. the road in wh~~h \ ). • • .SAMIR CHATTERJEE v. WEST BENGAL (Alagiriswami, J.) 27 the factory wa< situate; nor can we agree that alarm caused to 5000 . . A workers in which three members of the security staff were also injured docs not relate td public order. It is not necessary to refer to the decisions which distinguish between incidents which relate to. law . and order and incidents which relate · to public order; These incidents clearly relate to public order. · B Point 2 The appellant was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 23-7-1973 and was in confinement till he was released on 24-4-1974, the date on which the order of detention was passed·against '.Q· him. He was therefore incapable of any activity . during that . perio(I. · • ., There is therefore no substance in the argument' that 'as· the.inCidents relied upon relate to 9-5~ 73 and 24-5-73 th.ere .coul,d)iave;: been no apprehension on 24-4-74• that. he was' likely'-to·,att -.fu :it' manrier prejiidicial to public ord;r; · •• · . , · . ' · " : · ~: • ~ · , • , . . . .,_. ,. • > ... ..,. .~ .• - ..... , . Point 4 · ,;ti •• . . , . . . . . , - - . It is contended that tlie. deta.ining auth~ifty 'had not applied liis mind to the petitioner's case as shown by the fact that· the· petitioner had. to be discharged frOil\ the criminal cases due to want :jn order to prevent a person from acting in a manner p~ejuaicjal to public · . order in future. If the detaining authority is satisfi?