RAM KRISHNA PAUL

TIIE GOVT. 011 WEST BENGAL & ORS.

February 3, 1972

[J. M. SHELAT, H. R. KHANNA AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.]

West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) A.ct, 1970, s. 3- Grounds of detention--One of the grounds extraneous in character.

Order of detention would be vitiated.

The petitioner was deiained under section 6 of the West Bengal Pree vention of Violent Activitiea Act, 1970. One of the grounds of detention

which was supplied to the petitioner umler sul>-section ( 1) of section 8 was. that .he alongwith his associates werit to a pharmacy po&ng himself

as a purchaser of medicine '311d demanded money from the oWDllt" 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 ot detention,

D HELD : (i) The around doe& not fall under any ot the c:lausea of 1. 3 setting out the cireum1tance1 under which a pehon can be ordered to be detoined 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 ot to anyi other. Ai such it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty Of extortion. Intentionally putting " person in fear of injury to himlelf or any other is a -•ry E ingredient of the offence of extortion. [403 BJ

(iii) There is nothing to show that the District Magistrate wouid lia~ passed the order of detention of the petitionel" in case he was not indllt!nced by the facts mentioned in the ground. Therefore, the extraneous nature of even one of the grounds of detention would vitiate the order of deten tion. [403 DJ

F OR1GINAL JUltISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 307 or 1971.

Under articlo 32 of tho Constitution of India for 'II writ in the nature of habtas corpus.

R. K. lain, for the pe.titioaer

G. L. Mukhoty and G. S. Chatter/11, lot th~ re1pondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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 H pus 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.

The order of detention was made against the petitioner under A 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 preventing 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- C ernment and the orr 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 representation dated February 15, 1971 sent by the petitioner. The D 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 petitioner, sen(its report to the State GGvernment on April 5, 1971.

E 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 petitioner on May 31, 1971. The confirmation order was. communicated 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 G curiae on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G. L. Mukhoti on behalf 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 preed 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 Qf the grounds for the deiention of the petitioner was

R. K. PAUL v. WEST BENGAL (Khanna, I.) 403

A .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 20.00 hours you along wi!h your associates went to Jnanada Pharmacy in

Berhllll), P9~ 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. 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. 1001from 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 induced 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 Pharmacy, Berhampore town and demanded Rs. 2501from the owner of the Pharmacy at the point of dagger putiing him in fear of instant death. The owner of the Pharmacy was spared on payment of Rs. 501forthwith. You and VQ!!r associates went away fixing 26-12-70 for paymem of the remaining amount.

(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. 201from 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 G 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 tliat the petitioner received Rs. JO/- from the 'owner of Jnanada Pharmacy as a result of extortion. Extortion has been defined in H 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 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 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 necessarv 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.

K.B.N.