No 307 of 1971
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus
R K Jain for the petitioner G L Mukhoty and G section Chatterjee for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna J
This is a petition through jail under article 32 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by Ram Krishna Paul who has been ordered to be detained under section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act 1970 President s Act No 19 of 1970 hereinafter referred to as the Act
402 The order of detention was made against the petitioner under sub section 1 read with sub section 3 of section 3 of the Act 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 preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to make an order directing his 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 State Government along with the grounds of detention and other particulars on January 27 1971
The report and the particulars were considered by the State Government and the order of detention was approved by the said Government on February 5 1971
The same day the State Government 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 before 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 petitioner sent its report to the State Government on April 5 1971
Opinion was expressed in its report by the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner  The State Government confirmed the order of detention of the 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 Manoranjan Dey 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 behalf of the respondents on January 13 1972 we directed that for reasons to be recorded later the petitioner should be set at liberty
We now proceed to give reasons in support of our decision
Although a number of submissions were made on behalf of the 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 because one of the grounds for the detention of the petitioner was 403 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   1 That on 8 12 70 at about 2000 hours you along with your associates went to Jnanada Pharmacy in Berhampore town posing yourself a purchaser of medicine and demanded money from the owner of the Pharmacy in the name of collection towards party fund
Out of fear the owner of the pharmacy delivered Rs 10to you
2 That on 18 12 70 at about 2000 hours you along with your associates had been to Punjab Dastralaya Khagra P section Berhampor and demanded Rs 100from the shopkeeper 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 induced him to deliver up an amount of Rs 100 then and there 3 That on 22 10 70 at about 1930 hours you along with your associates had been to Jnanada Pharmacy Berhampore town and demanded Rs 250 from the owner of the Pharmacy at the point of dagger putting him in fear of instant death
The owner of the Pharmacy was spared on payment of Rs 50 forthwith
You and your associates went away fixing 26 12 70 for payment of the remaining amount
4 That on 26 12 70 a
about 2000 hours you along with your associates came to Jnanada Pharmacy Berhampore and realised Rs 20 from the owner of the Pharmacy at the point of dagger putting him in fear of instant death
 The various circumstances 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
According to Mr Mukhoti the facts set out in ground No 1 would show that the petitioner received Rs 10 from the owner of Jnanada Pharmacy as a result of extortion
Extortion has been defined in section 383 of the Indian Penal Co as under  Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other and thereby 404 dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything 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 induce 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 security
Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or any other is thus a necessary 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 cannot besaid 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 ground No 1
The extraneous nature of even one of the grounds of detention would in our opinion vitiate the order of detention
We therefore quash the order of detention of the petitioner


Summary:
The petitioner was detained under section 6 of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act 1970
One of the grounds of detention which was supplied to the petitioner under sub section 1 of section 8 was that he alongwith his associates went to a pharmacy posing himself as a purchaser of medicine and demanded money from the owner of the pharmacy in the name of collection towards party fund and out of fear the owner delivered Rs 10 to him
Quashing the order of detention HELD  i The ground does not fall under any of the clauses of section 3 setting out the circumstances under which a person can be ordered to be detained and is therefore extraneous in character
ii There is no allegation in the ground that the petitioner had put any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other
As such it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of extortion
Intention ally putting a person in
fear of injury to himself or any other is a necessary ingredient of the offence of extortion
403 B iii There is nothing to show that the District Magistrate would have passed the order of detention of the petitioner in case he was not influenced by the facts mentioned in the ground
Therefore the extraneous nature of even one of the grounds of detention would vitiate the order of detention
403 D