# SRILAL SHAW v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 913
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-12-04
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 453 of 1974
- **Bench:** M. H. Beg, Y. v .. CHANDRACHUD, A. c. GUPTA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/srilal-shaw-v-the-state-of-west-bengal-ors-6370
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

MISA-Prevc11ti1•e ])etention Act-Person who can be easily
prosecuted
under Punitive laws whether can be prevenrivefv> detained-Habeas CorpusConstitutio11 of I11dia Art. 32.
The petitioner in this habeas corpus petition has challenged the validity of
detention order dated the 28th August. 1973, passed under the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground that the. petitioner was acting in a
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the
community .. The ground of detention furnished to the petitioner was that on
C 19-8-1973 when petitioner's godown wa-s searched, property belonging to the
Railways of the value of' Rs. 1180/- was found. The case of the petitioner
was that the goods were scrap matter and that such article were available in the
open market. The petitioner produced some receipts alleged to have been
issued by the persons from whom he purchased the scrap. A criminal case was
filed against the petitioner under section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 but that case could not be proceeded with as
according to the District Magistrate the witnesse' did not dare to depose in ·
D
open court against the petitioner for fear of their lives.
·
E
F
G
H
HEW : This is a typical case in whir.:h for no apparent reason a person
who could easily be prosecuted under the punitive laws is being preventively
detained. The Railway Property '(Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, confers
extensive powen to bnni to book persons who. are found in unlawful possession of rajlyway property. Statements recorded under tb,at Act during the course
of investigation do not attract the provisions of section 1'62 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub Inspector of Police who made the Panchaoama could
certainly not be afraid of giving evidence against the petitioner. Besides, if
the statement of the detenue was recorded during the cours~ of investigation that
itself could be relied upon by the prosecution in order to establish the charge that
the petitioner was in unlawful possession of the railway property.
HELD FURTHER : On the materiaI which was available to the detaining
authority it was impossible to arrive at the conclusion that the possession of the
petitioner was unlawful. The prosecution was in all probability dropped as the
petitioner might have been able to establish that his possession of the goods was
not unlawful. The rule was made absGlute and the petitioner was directed to be
set at liberty forthwith. [914 F-GJ
0RIGfi.IAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 453 of 1974.
(Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
D. K. Sinha and K. R. Nambian, for the Petitioner;
P. K. Chakravarty, and G. S. Chatterjee, .for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was· delivered by
CHANDR.Acrruu, J.-This is a habeas corpus petition challenging
the validity of an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate,
24-Parganas, West Bengal on August 28, 1973. That order was passed
under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground
that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of suppl'ies and services essential to the community.
The particulars of the ground of detention furnished to the petitioner state that on August 19, 1973 when the petitioner's godown
at Naihati was searched property belonging to the Railway which was
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 S.C.R.
not available in the open market and which was of the approximate
value of Rs. l.180.50 was found. The property is stated to consist of
10 pieces of tic bars, 10 pieces of Rly. fish plates, 7 pieces of couplings,
20 pieces of two way keys and 11 pieces of cut pieces of rails".
The case of the petitioner as disclosed in his petition is that the
articles recovered from his godown are scrap metal and that such articles are available in the open market. The petitioner· claims to have
purchased sevei:al such articles of scrap metal on April 12 and June
28, 1973 from a firm c

## Text

A
B
913
SRILAL SHAW
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
December 4, 1974
[M. H. BEG, Y. v .. CHANDRACHUD AND A. c. GUPTA, JJ.]
MISA-Prevc11ti1•e ])etention Act-Person who can be easily
prosecuted
under Punitive laws whether can be prevenrivefv> detained-Habeas CorpusConstitutio11 of I11dia Art. 32.
The petitioner in this habeas corpus petition has challenged the validity of
detention order dated the 28th August. 1973, passed under the Maintenance of
Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground that the. petitioner was acting in a
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the
community .. The ground of detention furnished to the petitioner was that on
C 19-8-1973 when petitioner's godown wa-s searched, property belonging to the
Railways of the value of' Rs. 1180/- was found. The case of the petitioner
was that the goods were scrap matter and that such article were available in the
open market. The petitioner produced some receipts alleged to have been
issued by the persons from whom he purchased the scrap. A criminal case was
filed against the petitioner under section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 but that case could not be proceeded with as
according to the District Magistrate the witnesse' did not dare to depose in ·
D
open court against the petitioner for fear of their lives.
·
E
F
G
H
HEW : This is a typical case in whir.:h for no apparent reason a person
who could easily be prosecuted under the punitive laws is being preventively
detained. The Railway Property '(Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, confers
extensive powen to bnni to book persons who. are found in unlawful possession of rajlyway property. Statements recorded under tb,at Act during the course
of investigation do not attract the provisions of section 1'62 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub Inspector of Police who made the Panchaoama could
certainly not be afraid of giving evidence against the petitioner. Besides, if
the statement of the detenue was recorded during the cours~ of investigation that
itself could be relied upon by the prosecution in order to establish the charge that
the petitioner was in unlawful possession of the railway property.
HELD FURTHER : On the materiaI which was available to the detaining
authority it was impossible to arrive at the conclusion that the possession of the
petitioner was unlawful. The prosecution was in all probability dropped as the
petitioner might have been able to establish that his possession of the goods was
not unlawful. The rule was made absGlute and the petitioner was directed to be
set at liberty forthwith. [914 F-GJ
0RIGfi.IAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 453 of 1974.
(Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
D. K. Sinha and K. R. Nambian, for the Petitioner;
P. K. Chakravarty, and G. S. Chatterjee, .for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was· delivered by
CHANDR.Acrruu, J.-This is a habeas corpus petition challenging
the validity of an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate,
24-Parganas, West Bengal on August 28, 1973. That order was passed
under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground
that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of suppl'ies and services essential to the community.
The particulars of the ground of detention furnished to the petitioner state that on August 19, 1973 when the petitioner's godown
at Naihati was searched property belonging to the Railway which was
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 S.C.R.
not available in the open market and which was of the approximate
value of Rs. l.180.50 was found. The property is stated to consist of
10 pieces of tic bars, 10 pieces of Rly. fish plates, 7 pieces of couplings,
20 pieces of two way keys and 11 pieces of cut pieces of rails".
The case of the petitioner as disclosed in his petition is that the
articles recovered from his godown are scrap metal and that such articles are available in the open market. The petitioner· claims to have
purchased sevei:al such articles of scrap metal on April 12 and June
28, 1973 from a firm called R. Choudhary & Co. doing business at
l 2 l / 4A, Manikotla Main Road, Cal<:utta. The petitioner has produced stamped receipts alleged to have been issued by the sellers.
The receipt dated April 12, 1973 is in the sum of Rs. 525-60. The
receipt is apparently issued in the name of the petitioner and relates
to scrap consisting of couplings, Dog pins, Clips, Pull Rod Keys,
Socket fish plates etc. The price of the scrap material is stated in the
receipt to be Rs. 510.00 on which Sates Tax at 3% and surcharge
on the Sales Tax at 2 % is charged. The second receipt dated June
28, 1973 also purports to have beeri issued by the sellers R. Chaudhary
& Co. in favour of the petitioner. The receipt evidences the sale of
similar scrap articles of the value of Rs. 5000.00. Adding the Sales
Tax and the surcharge the amount of the bill is made out in the receipt at Rs . .5153.
The District Magistrate, in his counter affidavit, says that the goods
which were recovered from the godown of the petitioner are of a special kind used exclusively by the Railways and are not available in the
open market.
A criminal case was filed against the petitioner und'.er
section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession)
Act,
1966 but that case could not be proceeded with as, according to the
District Magistrate, the witnesses "did not dare to depose in open court
against the detenu for fear of their lives". It appears from the counter affidavit that a petition filed by the petitioner in the Calcutta High
Court to chaUenge the very order of detenti.on was dismissed on December 21, 1973. The Seizul'e List which is Anncxure B to the coun1tcr
aflld11vit contains at the end 11 certificate by · the Sub-Inspector of
Police who sc1ized the articles that they "appear to be serviceable Rly.
P.W.D. materials and R!y. Carriage materials".
This strikes us as a typical case in which for no apparent reason
a person who could easily be prosecuted under the punitive laws is
betng preventively detained. The Railway Property (Unlawful P1JS·
session) Act, 29 of l 966, confers extensive powers to bring to book
persons who are found in unlawful possession ot railway property.
The first offe11ce is punishable .with a sentence of five years and in the
absence of special and adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment the imprisonment shall not be less than one year. When a per.
son is arrested for an offence punishable under that l'\ct, officers of the
Railway Protection Force have the power to investigate into the al!iig·
cd offence and the statements recorded by them during the course
of investigation do not attract the provisions of section 162, Criminal
Procedure C1)de.
(Sec Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1972 decided
on 2.3-8·1974). If the facts stated In the ground arc true, this was
an easy case to take to a successful termination. We find it Impossible
A
B
c
E
F
G
A
B
c
D
E
SRILAL v. WEST BENGAL (Chandrachud, I.)
915
to accept that the prosecution could not 'be proceeded with as the·
witnesses were afraid to depose in the public against the petitioner.
The Sub-Inspector of Police who made the Panchnama, we hope,
could certainly not be afraid of giving ~vidence against th~ petitioner.
He had made the Panchnama of seizure openly and to the knowledge·
of the petitioner. Besides, if the petitioner's statement was recorded
during the c.ours~ of investigati!)n under the Act of 1966, that itself
could be relied upon by the prosecution in order to establish the charge
that the petitioner was in unlawful possession of Railway property'.
The petitioner has produced receipts in respect of the purchases
made by him and those receipts show that even Sales Tax and Surcharge on Sales Tax was charged on the sale price. All that the District Magistrate says in regard to the receipts is that "The receipts which
have been annexed to the writ petition would not be of any material'
assistance". This statement makes no sense because the receipts constitute the very foundation of the petitioner's defence to the charge that
he was in unlawful possession of railway property.
We are therefore of the opinion that on . the material which was:
availt1ble to the detaining authority, it was impossible to arrive
at
the conclusion that the possession of the petitioner was unlawful. It
seems to us that the prosecution was in all probability dropped as the
petitioner might have been able to establish that his possession of the
goods was not unlawful. The petition must therefore succeed. Accordingly, we make the Rule absolute and direct that the petitioner shall
be set at liberty forthwith.
P.H.P.
P1tltlon aUow1d.