Ram Krishna Paul v. Tiie Govt. of West Bengal & Ors.

Khanna, l. This is a petition through jail under article '.• 2 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habtas cor· pus by Ram Krishna Paul who has been ordered to be detained under section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activi-ties) Act, 1970 (President's.Act No. 19 of 1970), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

The order of detention was made against the petitioner under 111b-section ( 1 ) read with sub-section ( 3) of section 3 of the Aot by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad on ·January 27, 1971. According to the order of detention, the District Magistrate was satisfied with respect to the petitioner that with a view to prevent-ing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to make an order directing his JI. detention. The petitioner in pursuance of the detention order was arrested on January 28, 1971 ·and was served with the same day with the ground of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. Report about the making of the detention order was sent by the District Magistrate to the ~late Government along with the ~ounds of detention and other particulars on January 27, 1971. The report and the particulars were considered by the State Gov-ernment and the or~r of detention was approved by the said Gov-ernment on February 5, 1971. The same day the State Govern-ment submitted a report to the Central Government together with the grounds of detention and other particulars. On February 18, 1971 the State Government in its Home Department received re-presentation dated February 15, 1971 sent by the petitioner. The said representation after consideration was rejected by the State Government on March 23, 1971. In the ·meanwhile, on February 25, 1971 the State Government placed the case relating to the petitioner befpre the Advisory Board. The representation made by the. petitioner was sent by the State Government to the Board on March 23, 1971-The Advisory Board after hearing the peti-tioner, sen(its report to the State GGvernment on April 5, 1971. Opinion was expressed in i!s report by the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The State Gover:mnent confirmed the order of detention of1he peti-tioner on May 31, 1971. The confirmation order was. communi-cated to the petitioner as per memorandum dated June. 10, 1971.

The petition was resisted by the respondents and the affidavit of Shri Manoranian Dev, Assistant Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal was filed in opposition to the petition.

After hearing Mr. R. K. Jain who argued the matter amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G. L. Mukhoti on be-half of the IJ<Spondents on January 13, 1972, we directed that, for reasons to ~ recorded later, the petitioner should be set at liberty. We now pr~eed to give reasons in support of our decision.

Although a number of submissions were made on behalf of the H· petitioner at the hearing, ,it is, in our opinion, not necessary •to deal with all of them as the detention order is liable to. be quashed be-cause one Qf the grounds for the deiention of the petitioner was .extraneous and did not in law justify the making of the detention ,order.

The grounds of detention which were supplied to the peti- ·tioner under sub-section (1) ·of section 8 of the Act read as under:.

II

"(1) That on 8-12-70 at about 20.00 hours you along wi!h your associates went to Jnanada Pharmacy in Berhllll),P9~ town posing yourself a purchaser of medi-cine and demanded money from the owner of the Phar-macy in the name of collection towards party fund. Out of fear, the owner of the pharmacy delivered Rs. 10/ - to vou.

(2) That on 18-12-70 at about 20.00 · hours you along with your associates had been to Punjab Dastra-Iaya, Khagra, P. S. Berhampore and demanded Rs. 1001-from the shop.keeper at the point of dagger on the plea of collecting donation towards the party fUnd. Putting the owner of the shop in fear of .instant death, you in-duced him to deliver up an amount of Rs. 100/ - then .and there.

(3) That on 22-10-70 at about 19.30 hours you along with your associates had been to Jnanada Phar-macy, Berhampore town and demanded Rs. 2501-from the owner of the Pharmacy at the point of dagger putiing him in fear of instant death. The owner of the Phar-macy was spared on payment of Rs. 501-forthwith. You and VQ!!r associates went away fixing 26-12-70 for pay-mem of the remaining amount.

I' (4) That on 26-12-70 at about 20.00 hours. you

along with yout associates came to J nanada Pharmacy, Berhampore and realised Rs. 201-from the owner of . the Pharmacy at the point of dagger putting him in fear of instant death."

The various circU)llstances under which a person can be ordered to be detained have been set out in the different clauses of section 3 of the Act. Ground No. 1 supplied to the petitioner, in our opinion, does not fall under any of those clauses. Accord-ing "to Mr. Mukhoti the facts set out in ground No. 1 would show tliat the petitioner received Rs. JO/- from the 'owner of Jnanada · Pharmacy as a result of extortion. Extortion has been defined in section 383 of the Indian Penal Code as under :

"Whoever intentionally p11ts any person in fear of .any injury to tha1 person, or to any other, and thereby

dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or any-thing signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion."

It would appear from the above definition that before a person can be guilty of extortion, he should intentionally put any person in fear of injury, to that person or to any other, and thereby in· duce that person so put in fear to deliver to any person some property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into valuable securi!y. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or any other is, thus, a neces-sarv ingredient of the offence of extortion. In ground No. 1, however, there is no allegation that the petitioner had put any person in fear of any injury, to that person or to any other. As such, it can.!lot .be s_aid that the petitioner was guilty of extortion.

We thus find that ground No. 1 was of an extraneous character and did not justify an order of detention. There is also nothing to show that the District Magistrate would have passed an order of detention of the petitioner in case he was not influenced by facts given in groynd No. 1. The extraneous nature of even one of the grounds of de!tention would, in our opinion, vitiate the order of detention.

We, therefore, quash the order of detention of the petitioner.