# SASTI@ SATISH CHOWDHARY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 467
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-05-02
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 37 of 1972
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sasti-satish-chowdhary-v-state-of-west-bengal-5812
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

467
Maintenance of Jnternai Security Act, 1911~Detention under s. 3--
Alleged theft of copper wi" by detenu menti·oned a.s ground of /!etention--Detention -undtr A.ct whether vaUd when prosecution under Indian
Penal Code can be launched again.; detenu.
The petitioner was detained by an order und" '- 3 of the Maintenan~e
of Internal Security Act 1971. In a petition under .Art. 32 of the Constitution it was urged on behalf of tho petit'ioaer that a ptOS'".Cution
for
tbeft under the Indian Penal Code could have been launched on the facts
alleged against him in the grounds cf detention and therefore his d!tention was illeg-al.
Rejecting the pl<a,
HELD : It. is always open to the detaining authority to pass
an
order for the detention of a J>Crson if the grounds of detention are germane to the object for which a detenrion o:d·or can legally bq made,
The fact 'that the· particular act of the detenu which provides the reason
for the making of the detention order constitute; an offence under the
Indian Penal Code would not prevent the detaining authority from pass~
ing the. order for detention instead of pro-;eeding ag.ainst him in a court
Of law.
The ct.etaining ·authority might well fed that though there was
not sufficient evidence admissible under the Indian Evidence Act for s~
curing a conviction, the activiti·.;-s of the person ordered to be detained
were of such a nature as to justify the order cf det2ntion.
Even in cases
where a person 1~as been actually prosecu'ed in a court of law in respec1of an incident and has b'en dischargpd by the trying magistrate, a valid
order of his detention can be passed against him in connection with that
very incident. [469 H-470 CJ
Mohd. Sa/irt, Khan v. Shri C, C. Bose & Anr. (Writ petition No, 435
of 1971 decided on April 25, 1972) relied on.
Sahib Singh Duggci v. Union of India, [1966] I S.C.R. 323 referred
to.
The particulars of the
incident in tb' grounds of detention in
the
present case showed that the petitioner and his associates committed theft
in !respect of overhead electric wires. The above act of the l='~titioner
and his associate< created complete
dislocation of electric supplies
of
the area. Tm above ground 'Of detention was
germane to the object
for which a detention order can be made under section 3(1) (a) (iii)
9f th~ Act , According to that provision, the detaining autqority may,
1f satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
supplies
and selrvices e'seirtial to the community, it is necessary so to do make
an order directing that such person be detained, [470 E-F]
'
Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors, v. The State of West Bengal, [1969]
.2. S.C.R. 635, Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [1970] 3 s.C.R.
288 and Nagertdrc Nath Monda/ v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 2 S.C.C.
498, referred to.
468
SUPREM£ COUK f REPORTS
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 37 of 1972.
A
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the
nature of habeas corpus.
T. S. Arora, for the petitioner.
S. C. Ma;umdar and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.

## Text

8
c
I>
F
G
H
SASTI@ SATISH CHOWDHARY
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
May 2, 1972
[J. M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J
467
Maintenance of Jnternai Security Act, 1911~Detention under s. 3--
Alleged theft of copper wi" by detenu menti·oned a.s ground of /!etention--Detention -undtr A.ct whether vaUd when prosecution under Indian
Penal Code can be launched again.; detenu.
The petitioner was detained by an order und" '- 3 of the Maintenan~e
of Internal Security Act 1971. In a petition under .Art. 32 of the Constitution it was urged on behalf of tho petit'ioaer that a ptOS'".Cution
for
tbeft under the Indian Penal Code could have been launched on the facts
alleged against him in the grounds cf detention and therefore his d!tention was illeg-al.
Rejecting the pl<a,
HELD : It. is always open to the detaining authority to pass
an
order for the detention of a J>Crson if the grounds of detention are germane to the object for which a detenrion o:d·or can legally bq made,
The fact 'that the· particular act of the detenu which provides the reason
for the making of the detention order constitute; an offence under the
Indian Penal Code would not prevent the detaining authority from pass~
ing the. order for detention instead of pro-;eeding ag.ainst him in a court
Of law.
The ct.etaining ·authority might well fed that though there was
not sufficient evidence admissible under the Indian Evidence Act for s~
curing a conviction, the activiti·.;-s of the person ordered to be detained
were of such a nature as to justify the order cf det2ntion.
Even in cases
where a person 1~as been actually prosecu'ed in a court of law in respec1of an incident and has b'en dischargpd by the trying magistrate, a valid
order of his detention can be passed against him in connection with that
very incident. [469 H-470 CJ
Mohd. Sa/irt, Khan v. Shri C, C. Bose & Anr. (Writ petition No, 435
of 1971 decided on April 25, 1972) relied on.
Sahib Singh Duggci v. Union of India, [1966] I S.C.R. 323 referred
to.
The particulars of the
incident in tb' grounds of detention in
the
present case showed that the petitioner and his associates committed theft
in !respect of overhead electric wires. The above act of the l='~titioner
and his associate< created complete
dislocation of electric supplies
of
the area. Tm above ground 'Of detention was
germane to the object
for which a detention order can be made under section 3(1) (a) (iii)
9f th~ Act , According to that provision, the detaining autqority may,
1f satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
supplies
and selrvices e'seirtial to the community, it is necessary so to do make
an order directing that such person be detained, [470 E-F]
'
Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors, v. The State of West Bengal, [1969]
.2. S.C.R. 635, Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal [1970] 3 s.C.R.
288 and Nagertdrc Nath Monda/ v. State of West Bengal, [1972] 2 S.C.C.
498, referred to.
468
SUPREM£ COUK f REPORTS
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 37 of 1972.
A
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the
nature of habeas corpus.
T. S. Arora, for the petitioner.
S. C. Ma;umdar and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byKhanna, J. This is a petition through jail under article 32
of the Constitution for the ismance of a writ ::>f habeas corpus by
Sasti alias Salish Chowdharv, who has been ordered by the District Magistrate Howrah to be detained under section 3 of the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act). The crder recited that it was made with a view
to preventing the petitioner frcm acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services es,,ential to the
community.
The order or detention was passed by the District Magistrate
on Septeml:ler 8, 1971. The petitioner, it is stated, was found to
be absconding soon after the passing of the order. He was arrested on November 23, 1971 and was served with the order of detention and the grounds of detention together With
vernacular
translation thereof on the same day~ In the meanwhile on September 8, 1971 the District Magistrate sent report to the State
Government about his having made the order of detention along
with the grounds of detention and other necessary particulars.
The matter was then considered by the State Government. It
approved the detention order on September 10, 1971. The same
day the State Government sent report to the Central Government
along with necessary particulars regarding the necessit:Y of the
order.
On December 10, 1971 the State Government received
a representation of the petitioner. The said representation, after
being considered, was rejected by the State Government on December ·21, 1971. On December 22, 1971 the. State Government
placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board. The
representation of the petitioner was also
sent to the Advisory
Board.
The said Board, after considering the material placed
before it, including the representation of the petitioner, and after
hearing him· in person, sent its report to the state Government on
Januaiy 28, 1972. Opinion was expressed by the Advisory Board
that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner's detention.
On
February 11, 1972 the State Government confirmed ~he order of
detention of the petitioner. Communication of the said confirmation wall thereafter sent to the petitioner.
c
D
E
p
G
H
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
SASTI v. WEST BENGAL (Khanna, J.)
469
In opposition to the petition Shri J)ipak Kumar Rudra, Dist-·
rict Magistrate, who made the impugned order, has filed his affidavit.· Mr. Arora has argued the case amicus curiae on behalf of
the petitioner, while the State has been reprensented by Mr.
Majumdar.
Before dealing ·with the contention advanced by Mr. Arora,
it would be pertinent to reproduce the portion of the grounds of
detention whfoh contains the necessary particulars :
"You are being detainell in pursuance of detention
order made in exercise of the powers conferred by sul>-
section (1) read with sub-section ( 2) of section 3 of
the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act
No. 26 of 1971), on the grounds that you have been
acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
supplies and services essential to the community as evidenced by the particulars given below :-
(1) On 9.7.71 at ·about 23.30 hrs. you and your
associates Sk. Nazam, Kesta Adhikary, Bablu Das, Kachi
Chakravarty and 3/ 4 others were fou.nd
to commit
theft ii1 respect of overhead electric wires between two
posts near Zanana Latrine of Lawrence & Co. at Chakkashi by the darwans on duty. You and your associate
Sk. Nazam. were seen on the top of the post cutting one
end of the electric wire, while your associates were roll'·
ing the cut end of the wire from other post. The ch:rwans raised alarm and surrounded you with the help
of local people. Your associate Sk. Nazam with other
escaped and you and two other of your associates could
be arrested at the spot with stolen copper wire. This
created complete dislocation cf electric supplies of the·
area."
It is afgued by Mr. Arora that as the act attributed to th€i
petitioner in the grounds of detention constituted an offence under
the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner could only be tried in
a
court of law for the offence and no order for his detention on
that score could be made. This contention, in our opinion,
is
devoid of force.
It is always open to the detaining authority to
pass an order for the detention of a person if the grounds·
of detention are germane to the object for which a detentioff
order can 1.egally be made. The fact that the particular
act of the detenu which provides the reaoon for the making of the
detention order constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code
would not prevent the detaining authority from passing the order
for detention instead of proceeding against him in a court of law.
The d~taining authority might weill feel· that though there was 0
47-0
SUI'.REME COURT REPORTS
[1973] I S.C.R.
not sufficient evidence admissible under the Indian Evidence Act
for securing a conviction, the activities of the person ordered to
be detained were of sUG:h a nature as to justify the order of detention.
There would be llO legal ba,r to .lhe making of detention
order in such a case. It would, however, be imperative that the
incident which gives rise to the apprehension in the mind of the
detaining authority and induces that authority to pass the order for
detention shoold be relevant and germane to the object for which a
detention order can be made under the Act. Even in cases where
a person has been actually prosecuted in a court of law in respect
of an incident and has been discharged by the trying magistrate,
a valid order of his detention can b" passed against him in connection with that very incident. It was recently observed by this
Court in the case of Mohd. Salim Khan v. Shri C. C. Bose & Anr.
(Writ petition No. 435 of 1971 decided on April 25, 1972) that
from the mere fact that a detenu was discharged in a criminal
case relating to an incident by .!I magistrate, it could not be said
that the detention order on the basis of that incident was incompetent, nor could it be -inferred that it was without basis or mala
fide.
Reliance in this connection was placed upon the case of
Sahib Singh Duggal v. Union India(').
A
c
D
The particulars of the incident in the grounds of uetention
show that the petitioner and his associates committed theft in respect of overhead electric wires between two pq~ts near Zanana
Latrine of Lawrence & Co. at Chakkashi: The above act of the
E
petitioner and his associates created complete dislocation of electric supplies of the area. The above ground of detention, in our
opinion, was germane t-0 the object for which a detention order
can be made under section 3(1)(a) (iii) of the Act.
According to
that provision, the detaining authority may, if satisfied with respect
to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in
F
any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services
essential to the community, it is necessary so to do make an order
directing that such person be det11ined.
Mr. Arora has referred to the case of Pushkar Mukherjee &
Ors. v .. The State of West Bengal(') wherein this Court dealt with
the difference between the concept of public order and law and
G
order and observed that the said difference was similar to the
distinction between public and private crimes in the realm of jurisprudence. It wa.q observed that a line. of demarcation must be
drawn between seri<;ms and aggravated forms of disorder which
directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the
relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance
H
which primarily injure specific individuals arid only in a secondary
sense public interest.
(1) [196G] 1 S.C.R. 313
(2) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 635.
A
B
c
•
D
-_,,
F
SASTI v. WEST BENGAL (Khanna, J.)
47t
Pushkar Mukherjee's case(1) was referred to in a later decision of this Court in the case of Arun Ghosh· v. State of West
Bengal(') and it was pointed out that the true distinction between
the areas of "law and order" and ''public order" was one of degree and extent of the reach of the acU in question upon society.
Acts similar in nature,, but committed in different contexts and circumstances might cause different reactions; in one case it might
affect the problem of the breach of law and order, and in another
the breach of public order.
It was observeq . that the analogy
resorted to in the Pushkar Mukherjee's case (supra) of crimes
against individuals and crimes against the public though useful
to a limited extent would not alweys be apt. An assault by one·
individual upon another would affect law and order only and
cause its breach.
A similar assault by a member of one community upon a leading individual of another community, though
similar in quality, would differ in potentiality in the sense that it
might cause reverberations which might affect the even tempo of
the life of the community. The Court pointed out that "the a(;~
by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it
may not differ but in its potentiality it mav be very different." (see·
also Nagendra Nath Monda/ v. State of West Bengal(').
The distinction between public order and the mailltenance of'
law and. orc!er has, IJowever, not much material bearing on the
present case because, as .stated above, the petitioner has been de·
t11ined not witb a view to preventing him from aoting in any .man··
ner p1ejudicial to the maintenance .of pilblic order, but with a view
to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of supplies and services eS5ent1al to the community.
'No other infirmity .i11. the detention or~ itnd the consequent
dete.ntion of ·.the. petitioner ]j~s be.:n brought to. oqr notice. The
petition. consequently fails and 'is dimilssed ..
G.C.
Petition dismissed.
(l) [19691 2 S.C.R. 635.
(2) [1970) 3 S.C.R. 288.
(3) [1~72) 2 s.c.c. 4~8.