Case: Jagannath Das Vs. The State of W.B

Force sustained burn injury on his person. The above explosion of bombs created panic in the station area and in the adjoining locality and, as such, there was disturbance of public order.3. The petitioner in pursuance of the detention order was arrested on July 2, 1971 and was served with the said order and the ground of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on July 9, 1971. Representation made by the petitioner against his detention was received by the State Government on July 10, 1971 and after being considered was rejected by the State Government on July 30, 1971. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board on July 31, 1971. The representation of the petitioner was also forwarded to the Advisory Board. The Board, after considering the material before it and after hearing the petitioner in person submitted its report on September 3, 1971. Opinion was expressed by the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The detention order was confirmed by the State Government on September 11, 1971 and intimation about the confirmation of the detention order was immediately thereafter sent to the petitioner.4. The petition has been resisted on behalf of the State of West Bengal and the affidavit of Shri Chandi Charan Bose, Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) department has been filed in opposition to the petition.5. We have heard Mr. S. S. Khanduja, who had addressed arguments amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. G. S. Chatterjee on behalf of the respondent State, and are of the opinion that there is no merit in the petition. The first contention which has been advanced by Mr. Khanduja is that has been no valid communication of the ground of detention to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is an illiterate person as would appear from the fact that he affixed his thumb impression on the detention order at the time it was served upon him. The service of the detention order and the ground of detention which were in English upon the petitioner who was illiterate, according to the learned counsel, was not a sufficient compliance with law as it had the effect of denying him the right of making a representation against the order. In this connection, we find that the affidavit of Shri Chandi Charan Bose shows that at the time of his arrest the petitioner was served not merely with the order of detention and the ground of detention but also with the vernacular translation thereof. It, therefore, cannot be said that the order of detention and the ground thereof were in a language which the petitioner could not understand. No ground was taken by the petitioner either in the representation submitted by him or in the petition sent to this Court that the order of detention and the ground thereof had not been comprehended by him as they were in a language which he could not understand. No grievance can, consequently, be made by the petitioner on that score. It may also be stated that the petitioner does not appear to be illiterate as the petition sent by him from jail has been signed by him. The signature of the petitioner on the petition has been attested by the jail authorities.6. In the case of Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack (1969) 1 SCR 227 = (AIR 1969 SC 43 ), to which a reference has been made by Mr. Khanduja, the District Magistrate served an order on the appellant on December 15, 1967 under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act for his detention. The appellant filed a petition in the High Court on December 19, 1967 challenging the order of detention on the ground, inter alia, that the order and grounds in support thereof, which had been served upon the appellant, were written in English language which he did not understand. On January 18, 1968 the District Magistrate supplied to the appellant Oriya translation of the order and the grounds. Dealing with the order of detention passed on December 15, 1967, this Court referred to the fact that the said order ran into 14 typed pages. It was held that mere oral explanation of a complicated order of the nature made against the appellant without supplying him the translation thereof in a script or language which he understood would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded an opportunity of making a representation against the order. The subsequent supply of the Oriya translation of the order of detention and the grounds thereof was found to be of no avail as under section 7 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act the authority making the order of detention has to communicate to the detenu the ground on which the detention order has been made within five days from the date of detention. None of the infirmities which were noticed by this Court in the cited case vitiates the impugned order of detention. As mentioned earlier, the Petitioner was supplied at the time of his arrest with vernacular translation of the order of detention and the ground on which it was based. As such, the cited case can be of no assistance to the petitioner.7. It has also been argued by Mr. Khanduja that the representation submitted by the petitioner was not placed before the Advisory Board within 30 days of the date of receipt of representation. This contention is devoid of force because we find from the affidavit of Shri Chandi Charan Bose that the representation of the petitioner was received by the State Government on July 10, 1971 and the same was forwarded immediately after being rejected by the State Government on July 30, 1971 to the Advisory Board. It, therefore, cannot be said that the State Government failed to forward the representation to the Advisory Board within 30 days of its receipt.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. We have heard Mr. S. S. Khanduja, who had addressed arguments amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. G. S. Chatterjee on behalf of the respondent State, and are of the opinion that there is no merit in theThe first contention which has been advanced by Mr. Khanduja is that has been no valid communication of the ground of detention to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is an illiterate person as would appear from the fact that he affixed his thumb impression on the detention order at the time it was served upon him. The service of the detention order and the ground of detention which were in English upon the petitioner who was illiterate, according to the learned counsel, was not a sufficient compliance with law as it had the effect of denying him the right of making a representation against the order.In this connection, we find that the affidavit of Shri Chandi Charan Bose shows that at the time of his arrest the petitioner was served not merely with the order of detention and the ground of detention but also with the vernacular translation thereof. It, therefore, cannot be said that the order of detention and the ground thereof were in a language which the petitioner could not understand. No ground was taken by the petitioner either in the representation submitted by him or in the petition sent to this Court that the order of detention and the ground thereof had not been comprehended by him as they were in a language which he could not understand. No grievance can, consequently, be made by the petitioner on that score. It may also be stated that the petitioner does not appear to be illiterate as the petition sent by him from jail has been signed by him. The signature of the petitioner on the petition has been attested by the jailof the infirmities which were noticed by this Court in the cited case vitiates the impugned order of detention. As mentioned earlier, the Petitioner was supplied at the time of his arrest with vernacular translation of the order of detention and the ground on which it was based. As such, the cited case can be of no assistance to the petitioner.7.It has also been argued by Mr. Khanduja that the representation submitted by the petitioner was not placed before the Advisory Board within 30 days of the date of receipt of representation.This contention is devoid of force because we find from the affidavit of Shri Chandi Charan Bose that the representation of the petitioner was received by the State Government on July 10, 1971 and the same was forwarded immediately after being rejected by the State Government on July 30, 1971 to the Advisory Board. It, therefore, cannot be said that the State Government failed to forward the representation to the Advisory Board within 30 days of its receipt.