Case: Beni Madhab Shaw Alias Benia Vs. State of West Bengal

2. The petitioner, Beni Madhab Shaw alias Benia, was ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971), as per order dated May 10, 1972. He was arrested on the same day.

Court's reasoning:
6. The submission appears to us to be misconceived. This assertion in the counter affidavit, in answer to the present petition, merely suggests that the two grounds on the basis of which the impugned order was made and which were duly supplied to the petitioner, were founded on reliable information received by the authorities concerned. It has not been shown on behalf of the petitioner that it was necessary under the law to disclose the sources of the information or the exact words of the information so long as the activities which formed the foundation of the impugned order were actually disclosed to the petitioner. Under S. 8 of the aforesaid Act only grounds of order of detention are required to be disclosed to the persons affected by such order. Those grounds in the present case were actually disclosed. They are neither vague nor ambiguous. They furnish adequate information for enabling the petitioner to make effective representation against his detention. It was not contended and indeed it could not be contended that those grounds are not germane to the purpose of detention under the aforesaidof the grounds for detention being factually baseless the whole order was held in that case to be liable to fail because it could not be predicated upon which of the grounds the detaining authority had reached its satisfaction or whether it had reached satisfaction irrespective of or without the ground which failed. It is obvious that the problem facing us in the present case is in no way similar in nature to the problem which arose in Mintu Bhaktas case (supra). There is no analogy between the two cases.8. It was also suggested that the petitioner could have been prosecuted for the alleged activities on the basis of which he has been detained and that the order of detention must, for this reason, be considered to be mala fide. This contention is also without substance. As held in Mohd. Subrati v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 207 for past activities which amount to an offence does not operate in law as a bar to the order of detention on the basis of these activities. The two jurisdictions, one for punishing a person after a regular trial for the commission of an offence and the other for detaining him to prevent repetition of objectionable activities, are different. Non exercise of one does not by itself bar the exercise of the other.9. There being no other point raised on behalf of the petitioner and there being no other infirmity discovered by us on the present records we have no option but to dismiss the petition which we hereby do.