1972 (8) TMI 135

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Borjahan Gorey, who claims to be a laborer working in Gogalbhai Jute Mills was arrested on October 5, 1971 pursuant to the impugned order of detention. The grounds of detention were served on him on the same day. He made a representation to the State Government on October 25. 1971 which was duly considered by the said Government on October 29, 1971. His case was placed before the Advisory Board on November 1, 1971 as required by S. 10 of the Act and the said Board made its report on December 10, 197 1. As in the opinion of the Board there was sufficient cause for the petitioner's detention the State Government confirmed the impugned order on December 23, 1971 and communicated this fact to the petitioner on the same day. The grounds ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he first point presented by Shri Hiralal Jain, learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae against the petitioner's detention is that the grounds, on the basis of which the impugned detention order has been made, disclose facts which would squarely fall within the purview of ss. 109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the petitioner should have been appropriately proceeded against under those sections rather than detained under s. 3 of the Act. Our attention was not drawn by the learned counsel to any statutory provision, nor was any precedent or principle cited by him in suport of this contention. Now merely because a detenu is liable to be tried in a criminal court for the commission of a criminal offence or to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity proceedings in a criminal court against a person Merely for keeping the peace or for good behavior under Chapter VIII ,of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we may appropriately point out, is a jurisdiction distinct from that of detention under the Act, which has in view, the object of preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial inter alia to the security of the State or maintenance of public order. The fields of these two jurisdictions are not co-extensive nor are they alternative. The jurisdiction under the Act may be invoked, when the available evidence does not come up to the standard of judicial proof but is otherwise cogent enough to give rise to suspicion in the mind of the authority concerned that there is a reason....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d at so as to enable him to represent against them. The fact, therefore, that a prosecution under the Code could also have been launched is not a valid ground for saying that it precludes the authority from acting under the Act. This contention is thus devoid of merit. We have discussed this aspect somewhat elaborately go as to eliminate any misunderstanding of the True import of our decision and to exclude the possibility of any impression that the Act vests in the authority arbitrary power to select one or the other course dealing,, with the same or exactly similarly situation. The learned counsel then referred us to the petitioner's denial in his representation of the truth of the allegations contained in the two grounds. Accordin....