{"id":178778,"date":"1974-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974"},"modified":"2017-12-15T07:59:22","modified_gmt":"2017-12-15T02:29:22","slug":"biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974","title":{"rendered":"Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1161, \t\t 1974 SCR (3) 813<\/div>\n
Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBIRAM CHAND\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/03\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 1161\t\t  1974 SCR  (3) 813\n 1974 SCC  (4) 573\n CITATOR INFO :\n O\t    1974 SC2154\t (34)\n F\t    1975 SC 134\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nMaintenance  of\t Internal Security Act, 1971 S.\t 3  (1)\t (a)\n(iii)--Detention  when\tprosecution is pending on  the\tsame\nfacts--Validity.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner\t was detained by an order  of  the  District\nMagistrate, Varanasi, U.P. under Sec. 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the\nMaintenance  of Internal Security Act, 1971, with a view  to\npreventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to\t the\nmaintenance  of\t supplies  and\tservices  essential  to\t the\ncommunity.\nOn  the\t questions,  whether,  when  some  of  the   grounds\nfurnished by the detaining authority form the subject-matter\nof  trial in criminal cases which are still sub-judice,\t the\ndetention would be valid, and whether the detenu can be said\nto  be reasonably able to make an  effective  representation\nagainst those grounds :\nHELD  : (a) In the case of preventive detention the  grounds\nmust  be clear and definite to enable the detenu to  make  a\nreal  and  effective  representation to\t the  Government  to\nestablish his innocence. [818 C]\n(b)  Being  faced  with a criminal prosecution\tin  a  trial\nwhich is pending against him,  although, the detenu has\t not\ngot a proper and reasonable opportunity in   accordance with\nlaw to make an effective representation against the impugned\norder of detention covered by the said proceeding,  because,\nby disclosing  his  defence and certain facts lie  would  be\nhandicapped in defending himself in\tthe criminal  court.\n[818 B-D]\n(c)  On\t the  question whether it is open to  the  detaining\nauthority  to  choose two parallel proceedings\tagainst\t the\ndetenu held that the fact that the ground of detention could\nbe a subject matter of criminal prosecution is I not  enough\nto vitiate a detention order if the detaining authority does\nnot  choose  to prosecute him but only passes  an  order  of\ndetention  in  accordance  with\t law.\tThe  choice  of\t the\nauthority  concerned  for the mode of tackling\tthe  illegal\nactivity cannot per se be illegal and the order of detention\nis to be judged on its merits.\tThe position however will be\nentirely different if the authority concerned makes an order\nof  detention  tinder the Act and also prosecutes him  in  a\ncriminal  case\ton  the\t self-same  facts.   The   detaining\nauthority   cannot  take  recourse  to\ttwo   parallel\t and\nsimultaneous  proceeding nor can take recourse to  a  ground\nwhich is the subject matter of a criminal trial. [818 D-G]\n(d)  Under  the\t Act.  the decision of\tthe  authorities  is\nsubjective one and if one of the grounds is non-existent  or\nirrelevant  or\tis not available under the  law\t the  entire\ndetention  order  will\tfall since it  is  not\tpossible  to\npredicate  as to whether the detaining authority would\thave\nmade  an order of detention even in the absence of the\tnon-\nexistent or irrelevant ground [819 C-E]\n(e)  Although  the aim and object of the order of  detention\nwould  be  laudable  and  the antecedents  of  a  detenu  be\nextremely  reproachable, yet, it is essential that if it  is\ndesired\t to detain a person without trial,  the\t authorities\nconcerned  should  conform to the requirements of  the\tlaw.\nThe  shady  antecedents\t of  the  detenu  cannot  provide  a\nJustification\tfor   noncompliance   with   the   mandatory\nprovisions.   The  scope  of  the inquiry  in  the  case  of\npreventive  detention  based  upon  subjective\tsatisfaction\nbeing  necessarily narrow and limited, the scrutiny  of\t the\ncount  has  to\tbe even stricter than in a  normal  case  of\npunitive trial. [819E-F]\nIn  the present case, if the District Magistrate had not  at\nall  taken  recourse  to the facts  of\tthe  criminal  cases\npending\t against  the  detenu  in  Bihar  in  coming  to   a\nconclusion about his reasonable satisfaction for making\t the\norder  of  detention the matter would have  been  different.\nBut  it\t is  clear that the  District  Magistrate  has\tbeen\ninfluenced by the existence of the criminal prosecutions  in\nBihar and he has chosen those grounds to furnish as aids  to\nhis satisfaction in order to make\n814\nan  order of detention.\t The grounds with reference  to\t the\npending\t criminal prosecutions in Bihar could not provide  a\nvalid  basis for making the order of detention\tparticularly\nbecause\t those cases are pending trial in Bihar and in\tview\nof  the decision of the Patna High Court in connection\twith\none of them.  Hence the detention order is invalid. [819  A-\nC]\nMohd.\tSalim Khan v. Shri C. C. Bose, Deputy  Secretary<\/a>  to\nthe Government of West Bengal and another, A.I.R. 1972\tS.C.\n1670\/1672 distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 23 of 1974.
\nPetition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
\nFrank Anthony and K. B. Rohtagi for the Petitioner.
\nD. P. Uniyal, R. Bana and O. P. Rana for the Respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGOSWAMI, J.-This habeas corpus petition under Article 32  of
\nthe  Constitution of India is directed against the order  of
\nthe  District Magistrate, Varanasi, of 3rd September,  1973,
\nwhereby the petitioner was detained under sub-section  (iii)
\nof  clause  (a)\t of sub-section (1) .of section’  3  of\t the
\nMaintenance  of\t Internal Security Act,\t 1971  (briefly\t the
\nAct).  The order has been passed “with a view to  preventing
\nhim from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
\nof  supplies and services essential to the community”.\t The
\ngrounds\t of detention were served on the petitioner  on\t 7th
\nSeptember, 1973.  Leaving out the prefatory and\t descriptive
\nportions, the grounds of detention may be set out as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Ground  No.  3  : “That  you  and\t your  other
\n\t      associates have been charge sheeted by Mohania
\n\t      Police on 28-11-66 for the offence  punishable
\n\t      under section 7 F.C. Act and 125 DIR 1962\t and
\n\t      the  case\t is  still  pending  in\t the  Court,
\n\t      Magistrate   of\tBhabhua\t  (Bihar)   as\t the
\n\t      proceedings have been stayed by the orders  of
\n\t      the High Court, Patna”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Ground  No. 4 : “That with a view to  continue
\n\t      your   anti-social  activities  and  to\tsave
\n\t      yourself\tfrom  the clutches of law  you\thave
\n\t      started a firm under the name and style of M\/s
\n\t      Shyam   Sunder   Ashok   Kumar,\tin   Mohalla
\n\t      Machchodari P. S. Kotwali, Varanasi City\tsome
\n\t      time  in\tthe year 1966 or 1967 and  You\thave
\n\t      purposely\t associated  your  minor  son  Ashok
\n\t      Kumar, your brother Shyam Sunder and a lady of
\n\t      your family as partners in the said firm\tonly
\n\t      in  name\twhile,\tin fact,  you  are  actively
\n\t      transacting  the entire business of  the\tsaid
\n\t      firm to carry on the illegal activities”.
\n\t      Ground No. 5 : “That taking undue advantage of
\n\t      the  acute shortage of the foodgrains  in\t the
\n\t      state due to the failure of the rains  disrupt
\n\t      the  fair and equitable  distribution  amongst
\n\t      the public you have succeeded in getting large
\n\t      quantity\t of  maize,  bajra  and\t jawar\t and
\n\t      smuggled\tto  and stored in  your\t goodown  at
\n\t      Mohania (Bihar), a non-producing area of these
\n\t      foodgrains in the State of Bihar, just on\t the
\n\t      border  of U.P. through your said\t firm  which
\n\t      will be evidenced by the facts given below :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      815<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Then  follows  a\tdetailed list  of  sales  of
\n\t      bajra, jawar and maize to numerous persons  as
\n\t      per  cash\t memos\tmentioned  therein   showing
\n\t      sales, on 21-6-1973, 26-1973, 7-7-1973,  16-6-
\n\t      1973 and 16-7-1973
\n\t      Ground.  No. 6: “That the persons named  above
\n\t      are  neither foodgrains ‘Arhatias’ nor  retail
\n\t      shopkeepers  either at Chandsuli Bazar  or  in
\n\t      Chandsuli village”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Ground  No. 7 : “That the aforesaid sales\t are
\n\t      fictitious and have been shown with a view  to
\n\t      smuggle  bajra, jawar and maize to Bihar\tfrom
\n\t      where  enough  quantities of bajra  and  jawar
\n\t      have been booked by rail to Delhi and Poona as
\n\t      shown below
\n\t      Then  is given a list of various\tbookings  of
\n\t      225 bags of jWar ‘to Delhi, 116 bags of  bajra
\n\t      to Poona, 150 bags of bajra to Poona, 220 bags
\n\t      of  bajra\t to Poona and 229 bags of  jawar  to
\n\t      Poona  and  even\trailway\t wagon\tnumbers\t are
\n\t      mentioned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The 7th ground ends as under :–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “All  these consignments were booked to  self.
\n\t      The consigners of aft these consignments\twere
\n\t      searched\tat Mohania on the address  given  in
\n\t      the  railway  records but no such\t persons  or
\n\t      Bhandar\twere  available\t on  that   address.
\n\t      Enquires show that you were the person  behind
\n\t      these transactions”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Ground  No.  8  : “That  five  trucks  bearing
\n\t      registration No. UPF 2039, USF 3253, UPF 2927,
\n\t      USS  7745 and UPF 2015 loaded with  jawar\t and
\n\t      bajra were apprehended by Mohania Police on 2-
\n\t      3-1973  (2\/3 July 1973?) on  the\tground\tthat
\n\t      all  the trucks belonged to Uttar Pradesh\t and
\n\t      the jawar and bajra loaded on them were  being
\n\t      smuggled from U.P. to Bihar at your instance”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Ground No. 9: “That 3 bags of rice No. 2,\t 499<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      bags  gram, 70 bags of ‘Matar’ and 90 bags  of
\n\t      ‘Dal  matar’  were found short on\t the  actual
\n\t      verification of the stock of firm Shyam Sunder
\n\t      Ashok  Kumar on 17-7-1973 by  Deputy  Regional
\n\t      Marketing Officer, Varanasi (Enforcement)”.
\n\t      Ground  No. 10 : “That the firm  Shyam  Sunder
\n\t      Ashok  Kumar  have not  maintained  any  stock
\n\t      register\tand  satta Bhai since 1970  of\toil-
\n\t      seeds and oil-seeds product but at the time of
\n\t      checking on 17-7-73, 305 bags of ‘Tisi’ and 10
\n\t      bags of ‘Sarson’ were found”:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Ground  No.  11 : “In view  of  the  aforesaid
\n\t      mentioned\t grounds  I am\tsatisfied  that\t the
\n\t      activities  carried on by you are such  as  to
\n\t      interfere\t with  the  scheme  underlying\t the
\n\t      Essential\t Commodities  Act and  the  Movement
\n\t      Orders  promulgated  by Government  under\t the
\n\t      above  Act  in  a manner\tprejudicial  to\t the
\n\t      maintenance of supplies and services essential
\n\t      to the community and it is necessary to detain
\n\t      you”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9-1-84Sup.C.T. \/75
\n816<\/span>
\nThe petitioner applied to the High Court of Allahabad  under
\nArticle\t 226  of the Constitution read with section  491  of
\nthe,  Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the  order  of
\ndetention  and the same was dismissed by the Division  Bench
\non  26th  November, 1973.  The petitioner  obtained  special
\nleave to appeal against the judgment on 19th December,\t1973
\nand the same has been registered as Criminal Appeal No.\t 231
\nof 1973.  The petitioner also filed writ petition No. 23  of
\n1974 before this Court under Article 32 of the\tConstitution
\non  20th  December,  1973, against the order  of  the  State
\nGovernment of 21st November, 1973, confirming the  aforesaid
\norder of detention under sect-ion 12.(1) of the Act and rule
\nnisi was issued on 31st January, 1974.\tBoth the matters are
\nheard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
\nOn  behalf of the petitioner, the following submissions\t are
\nmade by Mr. Frank Anthony :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   There  was\tconsiderable  delay  in\t the
\n\t      Government disposing of the representation  of
\n\t      the  detenu\t     and hence\tit  vitiates
\n\t      the detention order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Ground   No.  8  is\t  non-existent\t and
\n\t      irrelevant and hence it vitiates the detention
\n\t      order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   Some, grounds furnished by the detaining
\n\t      authority are the subject matters of  criminal
\n\t      cases which are still sub judice.
\n\t      (4)   Two remote past incidents of the  detenu
\n\t      are   made  the  basis  of  some\tgrounds\t  of
\n\t      detention.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Although Mr. Anthony made a strong plea on the first  ground
\nregarding  delay  in forwarding the  representation  of\t the
\ndetenu\tto the Government and in its ultimate  disposal,  we
\nwill first take up his third submission.\n<\/p>\n
It is admitted by Mr. Uniyal, learned counsel for the State,
\nthat  the Mohania Police Station case referred to in  ground
\nNo. 3 is s. ill pending in the criminal court in Bihar.\t He,
\nhowever, submits that ground No. 3 is merely descriptive and
\nis not a ground in itself upon which the detention order has
\nbeen  based.. We may, therefore, scrutinise  the.  aforesaid
\nsubmission of Mr. Uniyal.  What is referred to in ground No.
\n3  is  the criminal case under section 7  of  the  Essential
\nCommodities Act and rule 125 of the Defence of India  Rules,
\n1962.\tThis has reference to the first\t information  report
\nlodged\tby the Inspector of Police, Karm Nasha\tCheck  Post,
\nCamp  Mohania  Arrah,  Bihar,  on  the\t11he  October,\t1964
\n(Annexure-P at page 137 of the writ petition).\tThe relative
\ncharge-sheet  dated  29th November,.  1966  (28th  November,
\n1966?)\tis at Annexure-0 at Page 140 of the  writ  petition.
\n‘The  charge-sheet itself mentions about the said  order  of
\nthe Patna High Court.  It is, therefore, clear that the\t 3rd
\nground\tforms the subject matter of a Criminal trial  which.
\nis  still sub judice.  The charge-sheet\t indicates  manifold
\ninter-state  illegal  activities of the firm of\t M\/-\/  Shyam
\nSunder\tAshok Kumar of Mohania attracting the provisions  of
\nthe Essential Commodities Act and the Defence of India Rules
\nbesides\t other\tsections of the Indian Penal  Code.   It  is
\nbecause
\n817<\/span>
\nof  this 3rd ground that the 4th ground has been  worded  in
\nthe  way  it  has been done, namely, “that with\t a  view  to
\ncontinue  your\tantisocial activities and to  save  yourself
\nfrom the clutches of law you have started a firm Linder\t the
\nname  and  style  of M\/S Shyam Sunder  Ashok  Kumar  We\t are
\ntherefore,  unable  to accept the submission of\t Mr.  Uniyal
\nthat  ground No. 3 is merely descriptive and is not  germane
\nwith  regard to the order of detention.\t On the other  hand,
\nthere  is great force in the submission of Mr. Anthony\tthat
\nground\tNo.  3 is the corner-stone of ground No.  4.  It  is
\nclear  that ground No. 3 is covered by a prosecution in\t the
\ncriminal court which is pending trial in Bihar.
\nIt should be mentioned here that the High Court of Patna  in
\nCriminal  Writ Jurisdiction cases Nos. 39 and 40 of 1965  by
\norder dated 21st August, 1965, quashed an order of detention
\nof  the\t petitioner made on 19th July, 1965,  based  on\t the
\nallegations  in\t the same first information report  of\t11th
\nOctober, 1964, of Mohania Police Station under section 7  of
\nthe  Essential\tCommodities  Act,  1955\t and  various  other
\nsections of the Indian Penal Code.  The identical facts\t arc
\nnow relied upon in ground No. 3.\n<\/p>\n
Again  ground No. 8 is also the subject matter\tof  criminal
\ncase  with reference to the first information report of\t 3rd
\nJuly  1973 (Annexure 12 at page 288 of the  writ  petition).
\nThere is no controversy that the said criminal case is still
\npending.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly  grounds Nos. 9 and 10 are covered by\t a  criminal
\ncase  with reference to first information report  dated\t 5th
\nAugust,\t 1973  and  the\t relative  charge-sheet\t dated\t19th
\nSeptember,   1973  under  section  3\/7\tof   the   Essential
\nCommodities  Act, pending in the criminal court at  Varanasi
\n(U.P.).\n<\/p>\n
We  are informed that there is no direct authority  of\tthis
\nCourt  on  the point.  Mr. Uniyal has,\thowever,  drawn\t our
\nattention  to a decision of this Court in Mohd.\t Salim\tKhan
\nv.  Shri C. C. Bose, Deputy Secretary<\/a> to the  Government  of
\nWest  Bengal  and another,(1) to which one  of\tus  (Brother
\nKhanna)\t was a party.  The decision is clearly\tdistinguish-
\nable  as will be clear from the following excerpt  from\t the
\nsame :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The   mere  fact,  however,   that   criminal
\n\t      proceedings   in\tconnection  with  the\tsame
\n\t      incidents\t  bad  been  adopted   against\t the
\n\t      petitioner  and be had been discharged by\t the
\n\t      trying Magistrate does not mean that no  valid
\n\t      order of detention could be passed against him
\n\t      in  connection with those very  incidents.  or
\n\t      that  such  an order can for  that  reason  be
\n\t      characterised as mala fide.  It might well  be
\n\t      that  a magistrate trying a particular  person
\n\t      under  the  Code\tof  Criminal  Procedure\t has
\n\t      insufficient   evidence\tbefore\t him,\tand,
\n\t      therefore,  has  to discharge such  a  person.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      But the detaining authorities might well\tfeel
\n\t      that though there was not sufficient  evidence
\n\t\t\t    admissible\t under\tthe  Evidence  Act
\n  for\ta
\n\t      conviction,  the\tactivities of  that  person,
\n\t      which they had been watching, were
\n\t      (1) AIR 1972 SC 1670\/1672.\n<\/p>\n
\t      818<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      of  such\ta nature as to justify an  order  of
\n\t      detention.   From\t the mere  fact,  therefore,
\n\t      that the Magistrate discharged the  petitioner
\n\t      from  the criminal case lodged against him  it
\n\t      cannot  be  said that the impugned  order\t was
\n\t      incompetent,  nor can it be inferred  that  it
\n\t      was  without a basis or mala fide.  See  Sahib
\n\t      Singh Dugal v. Union of India<\/a>“(1).\n<\/p>\n
\t       In the\t above\t premises,  more  than\t one
\n\t      question may arise for consideration     with
\n\t      regard to the third submission of Mr. Anthony.
\nFirstly\t  by whether the detenu can be said to be reasonably
\nable to
\nmake an effective representation against this ground when he
\nhas  been  facing  a  trial  in\t the  criminal\tcourts.\t  By
\ndisclosing  his\t defence  and  certain\tfacts,\tcan  he\t not
\ncomplain  that he will be handicapped in defending,  himself
\nin  the criminal courts?  It is well settled that in a\tcase
\nof  preventive\tdetention  the grounds\tmust  be  clear\t and
\ndefinite   to  enable  the  detenu  to\tmake  an   effective
\nrepresentation\tto the Government to induce the\t authorities
\nto  take a view in his favour.\tHe must, therefore,  have  a
\nreal and affective opportunity to make his representation to
\nestablish  his\tinnocence.   Being  faced  with\t a  criminal
\nprosecution which is pending against him all through, we are
\nclearly of the view that the detenu has not got a proper and
\nreasonable  opportunity\t in accordance with law to  make  an
\neffective  representation  against  the\t impugned  order  of
\ndetention covered by the said proceeding.
\nSecondly,  the\tquestion  is  whether  it  is  open  to\t the
\ndetaining  authority  to  choose  two  parallel\t proceedings
\nagainst\t the  detenu  as in this case.\tThe  fact  that\t the
\nground\tof detention could be a subject matter\tof  criminal
\nprosecution  is not enough to vitiate a detention  order  if
\nthe detaining authority does not choose to prosecute him and
\nonly  passes  an open trial.  The choice  of  the  authority
\nconcerned for the mode of no answer that the detenu must  be
\nprosecuted  in\tthe criminal court in an  open\ttrial.\t The
\nchoice of the authority concerned for the, mode of  tackling
\nthe illegal activity cannot per se be illegal and the  order
\nof detention will be judged on its merits in accordance with
\nthe  law  laid down by this Court.  The\t position  will\t be,
\nhowever, entirely different if the authority concerned makes
\nan order of detention under the Act and also prosecutes\t him
\nin  a  criminal case on the self-same facts.  This,  in\t our
\nview,  is  totally barred.  The detaining  authority  cannot
\ntake  recourse to two parallel and simultaneous\t proceedings
\nnor  can  take\trecourse to a ground which  is\tthe  subject
\nmatter\tof  a  criminal trial as in the case  of  the  first
\ninformation  report  dated 5th August, 1973  furnishing\t the
\ngrounds\t 9 and 10 of the detention order.  That fact  itself
\nintroduces a serious infirmity in the order of detention for
\nwhich the same must be held to be invalid.\n<\/p>\n
 Similarly  it is obvious that two of the cases are  pending
\nin  the criminal courts in Bihar.  But it is also clear,  as
\nnoted above, that the Patna High Court had quashed the order
\nof  detention  of  the Government of Bihar  based  on  facts
\nrelating  to the first information report of  11th  October,
\n1964, although on grounds different from those which we\t are
\nnow considering.  If the District Magistrate in the  instant
\ncase had
\n(1)  [1966] (1) SCR 313 quoted in AIR 1972 SC 1670.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    819<\/span><\/p>\n
not at all taken recourse to the facts of the criminal cases
\npending\t against  the  detenu  in Bihar\t in  coming  to\t the
\nconclusion  about his reasonable satisfaction for making  an
\norder  of detention, the matter would have  been  different.
\nIt is clear that the District Magistrate has been influenced
\nby  the existence of the criminal prosecutions in Bihar\t and
\nhe  has\t chosen\t those grounds to furnish  as  aids  to\t his
\nsatisfaction  in order to make the order of  detention.\t  We
\nare  clearly of the view that the grounds with reference  to
\nthe pending criminal prosecutions in Bihar could not provide
\na  valid basis for making the impugned order  of  detention,
\nparticularly  because those cases are pending trial  in\t the
\ncriminal courts in Bihar and in view of the decision of\t the
\nPatna  High  Court in connection with one  of  these  cases.
\nSince  the  detention order is based on these  grounds,\t the
\nsame  must be held to be invalid.  The third  submission  of
\nthe learned counsel, is, therefore, accepted.
\nIt  is well settled that in an order under the\tpresent\t Act
\nthe decision of the authority is a subjective one and if one
\nof  the\t grounds  is nonexistent or  irrelevant\t or  is\t not
\navailable  under  the law, the entire detention\t order\twill
\nfall since it is not possible to predicate as to whether the
\ndetaining  authority would have made an order for  detention
\neven  in the absence of non-existent or\t irrelevant  ground.
\nThe conclusion is, therefore, irresistible in this case that
\nthe,  impugned\torder is invalid and the detention  in\tthis
\ncase must be held to be illegal.\n<\/p>\n
As  too many cooks spoil the broth so also too many  grounds
\nmay  vitiate  an order of detention if any one\tof  them  is
\nirrelevant or nonexistent.  The authority, therefore, has to
\nbe  careful  enough  to see that  only\trelevant  and  valid
\ngrounds\t are selected having a nexus with the object of\t the
\norder  of  detention.  Although the aim and  object  of\t the
\norder  of  detention be laudable and the  antecedents  of  a
\ndetenu be extremely reproachable yet it is essential that if
\nit  is\tdesired\t to  detain  a\tperson\twithout\t trial,\t the
\nauthorities concerned should conform to the requirements  of
\nthe law.  The shady antecedents of the detenu cannot provide
\na  justification  for  non-compliance  with  the   mandatory
\nprovisions.   The  scope  of  the inquiry  in  the  case  of
\npreventive  detention  based  upon  subjective\tsatisfaction
\nbeing  necessarily narrow and limited, the scrutiny  of\t the
\ncourt  has  to\tbe even stricter than in a  normal  case  of
\npunitive trial.\n<\/p>\n
Since we have held the order of detention as invalid for the
\nreasons\t given above, it is not necessary to deal  with\t the
\nother  grounds submitted by Mr. Anthony.  The writ  petition
\nand  the appeal are allowed.  The judgment of the  Allahabad
\nHigh Court is set aside and in the view we have taken we  do
\nnot  feel called upon to pronounce upon the various  reasons
\ngiven by the High Court in rejecting the petition.  The rule
\nnisi  is  made absolute.  The petitioner shall\tbe  released
\nforth with from the jail unless he is required in any  other
\ncase.\tCriminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 318 of  1974  is
\nallowed.   The application for taking additional  papers  on
\nrecord is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
Petition allowed.\n<\/p>\n
820<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1161, 1974 SCR (3) 813 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: BIRAM CHAND Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/03\/1974 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. KHANNA, HANS RAJ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBiram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-15T02:29:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-15T02:29:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974\"},\"wordCount\":2897,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974\",\"name\":\"Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-15T02:29:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-15T02:29:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974","datePublished":"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-15T02:29:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974"},"wordCount":2897,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974","name":"Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-15T02:29:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biram-chand-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-on-28-march-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Biram Chand vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 28 March, 1974"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178778","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178778"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178778\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}