1974 (3) TMI 113 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention Order Invalidated; Petitioner Ordered Release. Grounds Must Be Relevant and Valid.

BIRAM CHAND Versus STATE OF U.P.

The Court found the detention order invalid due to overlap with pending criminal cases and the use of irrelevant or non-existent grounds. Emphasizing the ... - Issues Involved:1. Delay in disposing of the representation of the detenu.2. Relevance and existence of Ground No. 8.3. Grounds of detention overlapping with pending criminal cases.4. Use of remote past incidents as grounds for detention.Detailed Analysis:1. Delay in Disposing of the Representation of the Detenu:The petitioner argued that there was considerable delay in the Government disposing of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the detention order. Although this was a significant point raised by the petitioner, the Court decided to first address the third submission regarding the overlap with pending criminal cases.2. Relevance and Existence of Ground No. 8:The petitioner contended that Ground No. 8 was non-existent and irrelevant, thus vitiating the detention order. Ground No. 8 involved the apprehension of trucks loaded with food grains by Mohania Police on 2-3-1973. The Court acknowledged that this ground was indeed a subject matter of a criminal case based on the first information report of 3rd July 1973, which was still pending.3. Grounds of Detention Overlapping with Pending Criminal Cases:The petitioner argued that some grounds furnished by the detaining authority were the subject matters of criminal cases still sub judice. The Court examined this issue in detail. It was admitted that the case referred to in Ground No. 3 was still pending in the criminal court in Bihar. The Court found that Ground No. 3 was not merely descriptive but was a cornerstone for Ground No. 4, indicating that the petitioner started a firm to continue anti-social activities and evade the law. The Court concluded that Ground No. 3 was covered by a prosecution in the criminal court, which was pending trial in Bihar.Similarly, Grounds Nos. 9 and 10 were also covered by a criminal case with reference to a first information report dated 5th August, 1973, and a charge-sheet dated 19th September, 1973, under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, pending in the criminal court at Varanasi (U.P.). The Court held that the detaining authority cannot take recourse to two parallel and simultaneous proceedings nor use a ground that is the subject matter of a criminal trial.The Court cited the decision in Mohd. Salim Khan v. Shri C. C. Bose, which distinguished that the detaining authorities might justify an order of detention even if there was insufficient evidence for a conviction in a criminal trial. However, the Court emphasized that if the detaining authority chooses to prosecute and detain on the same facts, it introduces a serious infirmity in the order of detention.4. Use of Remote Past Incidents as Grounds for Detention:The petitioner also argued that two remote past incidents were made the basis for some grounds of detention. The Court noted that the Patna High Court had previously quashed an order of detention based on the same facts relating to the first information report of 11th October, 1964. The Court concluded that the grounds with reference to pending criminal prosecutions in Bihar could not provide a valid basis for the detention order.Conclusion:The Court held that the impugned order of detention was invalid due to the overlap with pending criminal cases and the use of irrelevant or non-existent grounds. The Court emphasized that the detaining authority must ensure that only relevant and valid grounds are selected, having a nexus with the object of the order of detention. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court was set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. The writ petition and the appeal were allowed.