{"id":180515,"date":"1972-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972"},"modified":"2017-07-16T09:53:45","modified_gmt":"2017-07-16T04:23:45","slug":"samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972","title":{"rendered":"Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2481, \t\t 1973 SCR (1) 859<\/div>\n
Author: I Dua<\/div>\n
Bench: Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSAMARESH CHANDRA BOSE ETC.  ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BURDWAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/08\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nSHELAT, J.M.\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 2481\t\t  1973 SCR  (1) 859\n 1972 SCC  (2) 476\n\n\nACT:\nMaintenance of Internal Security Act No. 26 of 1971--Section\n3(1)  and 3(2), whether delay of 22 days in considering\t the\nrepresentation\t of   the   detenues   by   the\t  Government\nunjustified-Whether  violence  practised  against  political\nopponents  and\tpolice party  affects  public  order-Whether\ndetention  order passed against detenues in jail is  per  se\nmala fide.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  detenues  and some other persons  belonging  to  CPI(M)\nkilled\ta driver belonging to CPI.  It was  further  alleged\nthat the detenues attacked the police party with bombs.\t The\ndetention order was issued while the detenues were still  in\ncustody.   The detention was challenged, inter alia, on\t the\nground\tthat the detention was vague, that the alleged\tacts\nof  violence did not raise any problem of public, order\t and\nthat  the  detention  was  maid\t fide.\t The  detenues\talso\nchallenged the validity of s. 17(a).\nDismissing the petition,\nHELD  : (i) The reasons given by the Government, for  delay,\nnamely, Pakistani aggression during Bangladesh war,  go-slow\nmovement  of  workers increase in the  number  of  detention\ncases  and spate of anti-social activities by Naxalites\t and\nother  political  extremists,  were  clear  and\t convincing.\nThere  was  no\tinordinate delay  in  the  consideration  of\nrepresentations.   Considering\tthe facts of the  case,\t the\nrepresentations\t were considered with  reasonable  dispatch.\n[862E]\nUjagar\tSingh v. The State of Punjab,<\/a> [1952] S.C.R. 755\t and\nAmiya Kumar Karmakar v. State of West Bengal W.P. No.<\/a> 190 of\n1972, relied on.\n(ii) The petitioners knew who the \"political opponents\" were\nand  the  detention order expressly  stated  the  respective\nparties\t to which the petitioners and the  victim  belonged.\nThe  two grounds of detention are interlinked.\t It  cannot,\ntherefore  be said that the petitioners did not\t get  oppor-\ntunity to make effective representation due to vagueness  or\nambiguity of grounds furnished. [865H]\n(iii) It is quite clear that the, petitioners and associates\nhad  indulged  in  acts prima facie  designed  to  terrorise\npeople to overawe their political opponents and to cow\tdown\nthe police force and all this must have inevitable effect of\ndisturbing and paralysing the normal peaceful civil life  of\nthe  general  public.\tThe  magnitude\tand  impact  of\t the\nactivities  of\tthe petitioners and his\t associates  on\t the\npeace  and  tranquility of the law abiding  orderly  society\nclearly shows that the acts of the detenues raised  problems\naffecting public order. [868D]\nShyamlal  Chakraborty  v. Commissioner of Police,  [1970]  1\nS.C.R. 762, relied on.\nSushanta Goswami, In re : [1969] 3 S.C.R. 138, Sudhir  Kumar\nSaha v. Commissioner, Calcutta,<\/a> [1970] 3 S.C.R. 360 and Arun\nGhosh\tv.  State  of  West  Bengal,<\/a>  [1970]   S.C.R.\t288,\ndistinguished.\n(iv) The earlier discharge in a court of law cannot preclude\nthe   detaining\t authority  from  coming  to  a\t  subjective\nsatisfaction about the necessity\n860\nof  the\t petitioner's  detention  which\t is  preventive\t  in\ncharacter.   The detention order is not rendered illegal  or\nmala  fide  simply  because the order was  passed  when\t the\ndetenues were still in jail. [868F]\n(v)  Challenge,\t to s. 17(a), introduced as an amendment  by\nDefence of India Act, 42 of 1971 was not pressed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 216-218 of 1972.
\nUnder  Article\t32  of the Constitution\t of  India  for\t the
\nenforcement of fundamental rights.\n<\/p>\n
Somnath\t Chatterjee,  Narnarayan  Gooptu,  Pulakmondal\t and
\nRathin Das, for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
D. N. Mukherjee and G. Mukhoty, for the respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDua, J. These three writ petitions (Samaresh Chandra Bose v.
\nDistrict  Magistrate, Burdwan & Ors.  W.P. No.<\/a> 216 of  1972;
\nShymal Biswas v. District Magistrate, Burdwan etc., W.P. No.
\n217  of 1972 and Dulal Chandra Das v.  District\t Magistrate,
\nBurdwan<\/a>\t etc., W.P. No. 218 of 1972) raise common  questions
\nof  law and fact and are, therefore, being disposed of by  a
\ncommon judgment.  In fact the main arguments were  addressed
\nonly  in Samaresh Chandra Bose v. District Magistrate  (W.P.
\nNo.<\/a>  216  of 1972), the arguments of this case\thaving\tbeen
\nadopted in the other two cases.\t We would, therefore,  refer
\nto the facts in W.P. No. 216 of 1972,
\nSamaresh  Chandra  Bose who is employed as a  Supervisor  of
\nAlloy  Steel Plant, Durgapur was, according, to\t the  common
\ncase  of both sides arrested on October 13, 1971 and was  an
\naccused\t in  Durgapur P.S. case (No. 33\t dated\tOctober\t 14,
\n1971) under ss. 147\/188\/307, I.P.C. and under S. 6(3) of the
\nIndian\tExplosives Act.\t According to the petitioner he\t was
\nwoken  up while asleep in his quarters and arrested  on\t the
\nmorning whereas according to the respondent he was  arrested
\nat  about 8.15 p.m. from Tilak Road “B” Zone, Durgapur.\t  It
\nis  alleged that the petitioner, along with his\t associates,
\nShyamal\t  Biswas  and  Dulal  Chandra  Das  (the  two\twrit
\npetitioners in the connected cases) and others had hurled  a
\nbomb towards a police party on patrol duty and after  having
\ndone  so  they tried to run away, but they were\t chased\t and
\nultimately  all\t three were apprehended.   Th`e\t petitioner,
\naccording  to the respondent, was also wanted in  connection
\nwith  Durgapur\tP.S. case (No. 17 dated\t October  8,  1971).
\ndescribed  by  the  petitioner in paragraph 8  of  his\twrit
\npetition to be under ss. 148\/149\/326\/307\/326\/302, I.P.C. The
\npetitioner  ,was discharged in both the\t aforesaid  criminal
\ncases on October
\n\t\t\t    861<\/span>
\n28,  1971.   After his discharge the petitioner\t was  served
\nwith the detention order dated October 26 , 1971 made by the
\nDistrict  Magistrate,  Durgapur\t in exercise  of  the  power
\nconferred  on him by s. 3(1) and (2) of the  Maintenance  of
\nInternal  Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter\t called\t the
\nAct) and arrested on October 28, 1971.\n<\/p>\n
On  behalf  of the petitioner Shri Somnath  Chatterjee,\t his
\nlearned\t Advocate, submitted as the first ground  of  attack
\nagainst\t the  order  of\t detention  that  the\tpetitioner’s
\nrepresentation\tto the State Government was  not  considered
\nwith  due  expedition as contemplated by Art. 22(5)  of\t the
\nConstitution.  The representation was received by the  State
\nGovernment on November 23, 1971 but it was disposed of about
\n22  days thereafter on December 16, 1971.  According to\t him
\nthe explanation for the delay furnished by the respondent is
\nhighly\t unsatisfactory\t and  this  inordinate\tdelay\thas,
\ntherefore, rendered the petitioner’s detention invalid.
\nit  is\tnot  disputed that the\trepresentation\treceived  on
\nNovember 23, 1971 was considered on December 16, 1971.\tThe
\nexplanation  given by the State for the aforesaid  delay  in
\nconsidering the petitioner’s representation is contained  in
\nparagraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it is averred
\n:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “…… that the written representation of the
\n\t      detenu  was  duly\t considered  by\t the   State
\n\t      Government  expeditiously\t and  the  same\t was
\n\t      rejected\tafter due consideration.  I  further
\n\t      state  that  at that time due  ‘to  influx  of
\n\t      refugees and due to Pakistan aggression,\tmost
\n\t      of  the officers of the Home  Department\twere
\n\t      very  busy with serious problems\twhich  faced
\n\t      the country at that time and as, such the said
\n\t      representation of the petitioner could not  be
\n\t      considered earlier.  Moreover I further  state
\n\t      that  due\t to  go-slow  movement\tof   workers
\n\t      launched co-ordination committee of the  State
\n\t      Government   Employees   during\tthe   period
\n\t      September\t to November 1971 there was  serious
\n\t      dislocation and delay in movement of files and
\n\t      disposal of cases.  I further state that delay
\n\t      was  also\t caused due to\tabrupt\tincrease  in
\n\t      number of detention cases during that time  as
\n\t      the–re was spate of antisocial activities  by
\n\t      Naxalites\t and other political  extremists  in
\n\t      the State.  1 state that all the above factors
\n\t      contributed towards the delay of about 28 days
\n\t      in  considering  the  representation  of\t the
\n\t      detenu petitioner.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This explanation in a nut-shell shows the following  reasons
\nforthe delay in considering the petitioner’s representation
\n\t      (1)   influx of refugees;\n<\/p>\n
\t      862<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (2)   Pakistani aggression keeping most of the
\n\t      officers of the Home Department busy with\t the
\n\t      serious problems facing the country;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3)   go-slow movement of the workers launched
\n\t      by   Co-ordination  Committee  of\t the   State
\n\t      Government  employees  during  the  month\t  of
\n\t      September\t to  November, 1971 giving  rise  to
\n\t      serious dislocation and delay in the  movement
\n\t      of files and disposal of cases;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (4)   abrupt   increase  in  the\t number\t  of
\n\t      detention cases;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (5)   spate   of\tanti-social  activities\t  by
\n\t      Naxalites\t other political extremists  in\t the
\n\t      State.\n<\/p>\n
Although according to Shri Chatterjee’s submission this\t ex-
\nplanation  is  vague  and ambiguous and\t does  not  disclose
\nprecise\t material  on which the delay can be  held  by\tthis
\nCourt  to have been satisfactorily explained, we are  unable
\nto  find any ambiguity or vagueness in it.  In our  opinion,
\nthe  explanation  contains distinct reasons based  on  facts
\nwhich  are quite clear, definite and relevant and  they\t can
\nlegitimately  be taken into account for determining  whether
\nthe   State  Government\t had  considered  the\tpetitioner’s
\nrepresentation\twith reasonable despatch and  expedition  or
\nhad inordinately delayed its consideration.  The explanation
\nconvincingly shows that there was no inordinate delay on the
\npart of the State Government and that the representation was
\nduly considered with reasonable dispatch or as expeditiously
\nas  practicable in the Peculiar circumstances of  the  case,
\nthereby fully  complying  with the provisions of Art.  22(5)
\nof the Constitution.This Court in Ujagar Singh v. The  State
\nof Punjab<\/a>(1) while  construing the words “as soon as may be”
\nin s. 7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 4 of 1950 said that
\nthese words mean reasonable dispatch and what is  reasonable
\ndispatch  depends  on the facts of each case, it  being\t not
\npossible to set down an arbitrary time limit.  Recently in a
\nnumber of decisions this Court has taken a similar view.  No
\nprecedent has been brought to our notice on the authority of
\nwhich  we may be obliged to hold that the reasons  contained
\nin  the explanation before us do not satisfactorily  account
\nfor the delay of 22 days and that the detention must on that
\naccount be held to have become invalid.\t On the other hand a
\nrecent\tdecision of this Court dated July 31, 1972 in  Amiya
\nKumar  Karmarkar  v. State of West Bengal (2 ) delay  of  21
\ndays  in  somewhat  similar circumstances was  held  not  to
\namount\tto  inordinate delay so as to render  the  detention
\ninvalid.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1952] S. C. R. 756.\n<\/p>\n
(2) W.P. No. 190 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
863<\/span><\/p>\n
Shri  Chatterjee  faintly contended that  according  to\t the
\nverification  of the counter-affidavit the contents of\tpara
\nlo  are based on information derived from the  records\tand,
\ntherefore, this should more appropriately have been affirmed
\nby  the District Magistrate and not by the Deputy  Secretary
\nof the Home (Special) Department.  This submission seems  to
\nus  to\tbe  misconceived.  In the State\t of  West  Bengal  a
\nSpecial Section of the Home Department has been created\t for
\nthe purpose of dealing with the law and order situation.  In
\npara  6(h)  of the counter affidavit it is  stated  that  on
\nNovember  23,  1971 the Home  Department  (Special  Section)
\nreceived the petitioner’s representation. From para 8 of the
\ncounter-affidavit  it appears that the\tsaid  representation
\nwas  addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Home, (Special  )
\nDepartment.    It  is  indeed  this  Department\t which,\t  as
\nsuggested  in para 24 of the counter-affidavit, has  in\t its
\ncustody. relevant records of the State Government from which
\nthe  required relevant information has been derived  by\t the
\ndeponent  who is the Deputy Secretary of the Home  (Special)
\nDepartment, Government of West Bengal.\tHe has affirmed that
\nhe has gone through the records kept in the Special  Section
\nand   that  he\tis  well-acquainted  with  the\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances  of the case.  It is noteworthy that  in\tthis
\ncase there is no challenge to the bona fides of the  officer
\n(District  Magistrate, Durgapur) making the order of  deten-
\ntion  : had there been such a challenge one might have as  a
\nrule  expected\tthe officer concerned to file  an  affidavit
\ncontroverting that challenge.  This contention is thus\talso
\nunacceptable.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Chatterjee also submitted that there is no material  on
\nthe  record suggesting that the Special Section\t itself\t did
\nnot  continue to function effectively by reason of the\tfive
\ngrounds\t contained in the explanation for the delay  in\t the
\nconsidering  the petitioner’s representation.  According  to
\nthe  learned counsel this Section should not havetaken\tmore
\nthan  just  seven  days\t for  making-available\tto  theState
\nGovernment   the  requisite  material  for  performing\t its
\nconstitutional\tduty  as contemplated by Art.  22(5).\tShri
\nChatteriee indeed went to the length of suggesting that\t the
\nexplanation contained in the counter-affidavit was an after-
\nthought.    We\tare  wholly  unable  to\t agree\t with\tthis
\nsubmission.   The  very fact that a Special Section  of\t the
\nHome  Department was considered necessary to be\t created  in
\nthe  State  of West Bengal for dealing with inter  alia\t the
\ncases of detenues, convincingly suggests that the  situation
\nthere was far from normal; besides it is a matter of  public
\nhistory\t of which judicial notice can be taken,\t and  indeed
\neven  Shri  Chatterjee\tcould not controvert  it,  that\t for
\nseveral\t months preeceding the Tndo-Pak war which  began  on
\nDecember 3, 1971, there was a continuous influx of  refugees
\n(running into several millions) from what was then known  as
\nEast  Pakistan and is now free Republic of Bangla  Desh\t and
\nthat
\n864<\/span>
\non  our\t eastern  borders the  situation  was  anything\t but
\nnormal,\t indeed, this unprecedented influx of refugees\tfrom
\nthe  very  nature.  Of things could not\t but  give  rise  to
\ncolossal  problems  affecting inter alia the law  and  order
\nsituation  and maintenance of security in the State-of\tWest
\nBengal.\t  Between  November  23\t and  December\t16,   ‘1971,
\ntherefore,  the\t entire\t Home  Department  in  West  Bengal,
\nincluding  its Special Section which owed its birth  to\t the
\nurgent\tneed  of dealing with the detenus and  other  allied
\nproblems,  can\tlegitimately be assumed to have\t been  under
\nconsiderable  stress  and  strain on account  of  the  vexed
\nproblem posed by the indiscriminate influx of refugees\twith
\nunknown\t antecedents  from across our eastern  borders.\t  We
\nare,   therefor,–,  wholly  unable  to\t agree\t with\tShri
\nChatterjee  that there is no relevant material\tfor  holding
\nthat  the  working  of\tthe  Special  Section  of  the\tHome
\nDepartment  was\t also  adversely affected  for\tthe  reasons
\ncontained in the respondent’s explanation.
\nThe  two  grounds on the basis of which the  petitioner\t has
\nbeen detained are :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On  8-10-71  at about 13-45 hours  you  along
\n\t      with  your  associates Dulal Chandra  Das\t and
\n\t      30\/35 others, belonging to CPI(M) with a\tview
\n\t      to   reduce  your\t political   opponents,\t  to
\n\t      submission  and  passivity, being\t armed\twith
\n\t      lethal weapon like daggers etc. stopped D.S.P.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Bus  No.\tWGH 7664 forcibly between  24th\t and
\n\t      26th   street   on   Sibaji   Road,   throwing
\n\t      brickbats,  pulled  down the driver  from\t the
\n\t      bus,  assaulted  him and\tstabbed\t Shri  Jiten
\n\t      Chowdhury\t of  8\/9  Akbar Road,  a  driver  of
\n\t\t\t    D.S.P.   Bus,   belonging  to  CPI,
\nwho   was
\n\t      travelling  in the said bus and murdered\thim.
\n\t      Your act created a general sense of panic\t and
\n\t      insecurity  in the minds of the  residents  of
\n\t      the- area of Sibaji Road in A Zone Steel Town-
\n\t      ship,  who  could\t not  follow  their   normal
\n\t      avocations  for a few days after the  incident
\n\t      under. the influence of terror.\n<\/p>\n
\t      2.    Following a series of interparty clashes
\n\t      on  8-10-71  curfew  orders  were\t promulgated
\n\t      under section 144 Cr.  P.C. in D.S.P. Township
\n\t      between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m. with effect from  8-
\n\t      10-71.  On 13-10-71 during the curfew hours at
\n\t      about   20-15  hours  you\t along\t with\tyour
\n\t      associates   Dulal  Chandra  Das\tand   others
\n\t      belonging\t to CPI (M) being armed with  lethal
\n\t      weapons  like  bombs,  knives  etc.,  attacked
\n\t      lorry no.\t WGD 536 in which police party under
\n\t      the leadership of H.C\/1209 Anil Kumar  Samanta
\n\t      of B Zone O.P. was on patrol duty.  You hurled
\n\t      bomb  aiming the police party with a  view  to
\n\t      kill
\n\t      865<\/span>
\n\t      them near street no.   of Tilak Road The\tbomb
\n\t      missed  them and it exploded on the road\tThe-
\n\t      police party the explosion chased you and your
\n\t      associates and could arrest you and 2  others,
\n\t      while  others fled away.\tOn search one  knife
\n\t      and   a\tcycle  chain  was   recovered\tfrom
\n\t      possession  of  Samaresh Bose.  Your  act\t was
\n\t      intended\tto  cow\t down the  police  and\tyour
\n\t      political\t opponents by terror  for  promoting
\n\t      the  objectives  of  the party  to  which\t you
\n\t      belong.\t By  attempting\t to  murder   police
\n\t      personnel\t engaged  in maintenance  of  public
\n\t      order in the residential township area  within
\n\t      curfew  period, you created a sense  of  panic
\n\t      and insecurity in the minds of local people to
\n\t      such  an\textent that they  were\thesitant  to
\n\t      pursue   their   normal\tavocations   for   a
\n\t      considerable period after the incident.”
\nThe  learned counsel faintly suggested that on\tDecember  8,
\n1971  the Indo-Pak war was at its height and, therefore,  it
\nis inconceivable that the incident mentioned in ground no. 1
\ncould  have occurred on that day because no one\t would\thave
\nbeen  so  reckless as to dare to indulge in such  a  violent
\nactivity, when armed forces must be deemed to be present  in
\nthe  State in large numbers for fighting war on the  eastern
\nborder.\t  This contention is difficult to accept.  The\tfact
\nof  the\t occurrence having taken place must be\taccepted  as
\nstated in the grounds because the subjective satisfaction of
\nthe detaining authority on this point is final.\t Indeed,  it
\nhas  also been affirmed in the counter-affidavit.  Once\t the
\noccurrence is accepted, then, even on Shri Chatterjee’s\t own
\nline  of  reasoning  the  necessity of\tthe  order  for\t the
\ndetention of the petitioner and his associates would  appear
\ntoo  obvious to require any further Proof.  This  occurrence
\nhighlights  the\t terrorising character of  the\tpetitioner’s
\nparty.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  counsel then urged that both  the\t grounds  am
\nvague. because the expression “political opponents” has\t not
\nbeen  explained with precision.\t In our opinion the  learned
\ncounsel\t is not quite correct in his submission.  In  ground
\nno.  1\tit  is\tclearly\t stated\t that  the  petitioner\t his
\nassociates  be onging to CPI(M), with a view to\t reduce\t the
\npolitical opponents to submission and passivity, being armed
\nwith  lethal weapons etc., stabbed Shri Jiten  Choudhury,  a
\ndriver\tof D.S P. (Durgapur Steel Project) Bus belonging  to
\nthe C.P.I. (emphasis supplied).\t The political parties\tare,
\ntherefore,  quite  clearly and specifically referred  to  in
\n,ground\t no.  1. It cannot be said that the  petitioner\t was
\nkept  in  the dark or that he was unable to  understand\t the
\nreference to the political opponents in this ground and was,
\ntherefore,  not\t in a position to make a  proper,  effective
\nrepresentation.\t  In  ground no. 2 undoubtedly there  is  no
\nreference to C.P.T. such as is found in ground no. 1. But in
\nour opinion ground no. 2 has to be ,
\n6–L173Sup.CI\/73
\n866<\/span>
\nread  and understood in the light of the reference  made  to
\nthe  political\topponents in ground no. 1. The\ttwo  grounds
\nhave to be read together in this respect as they are clearly
\ninter-linked.\tReference  in ground no. 2 to  a  series  of
\ninter-party  clashes  on  ,October  8,\tmakes  the  position
\nfurther\t clear.\t Ground no. 2 states that  the\tpetitioner’s
\nact  was intended to cow down the police and  the  political
\nopponents  by  terror for promoting the\t objectives  of\t the
\nparty  to which he belonged.  The petitioner’s\tparty  being
\nclearly specified in ground no. 1 which is inter-linked with
\nground\tno. 2, the challenge on the ground of  vagueness  or
\nambiguity  in  ,round  no. 2 must be held to  be  devoid  of
\nmerit.\n<\/p>\n
Shri  Chatterjee  then said that this ground does  not\tgive
\nrise  to  any  problem of public order.\t We  are  unable  to
\naccept\t this  submission.   Attempting\t to  murder   police
\npersonnel engaged on patrol duty in the residential township
\narea  during curfew period in order to overawe them  is,  in
\nour  view, an act which would obviously create a feeling  of
\npanic,\talarm  and  insecurity in the  minds  of  the  local
\ninhabitants in general : it would also suggest that any\t one
\nopposing  the political ideology of the\t petitioner’s  party
\nwould  be similarly exposed to violence at the hands of\t the
\npetitioner  and his associates, who are not afraid  even  of
\nthe  police force.  This clearly illustrates how direct\t and
\nextensive is the reach of this crime on the general  public.
\nThe  faint suggestion that during curfew time  the  incident
\nmentioned  in  ground no. 2 could not reasonably  raise\t any
\nproblem\t of public order because there would hardly be\tmany
\nmembers\t of the public, present in the streets, seems to  us
\nto  be\tmisconceived.  The incident is said  to\t have  taken
\nplace  at about 8-15 p.m. on October 13. 1971 during  curfew
\nhours.\t The area in question in residential township  area.
\nPeople,\t though\t not  moving about  in\tthe  streets.  would
\nnormally  speaking  be awake in their own  houses  and\tthey
\ncould  not  be unaware of such a serious clash\tbetween\t the
\npetitioner and his associates armed with bombs etc., on\t the
\none  side and the police patrol Party on the other, on\twhom
\nthe bombs were burled.\tThis clash must have caused  serious
\ndisturbance  of peace and tranquillity in the  locality\t and
\nwould  inevitably had attracted attention of its  residents.
\nAttack with bombs and other lethal weapons on police  patrol
\nparty in the circumstances cannot but have a grave impact on
\npublic order and on even tempo of the life of the community.
\nPeople,\t though\t keeping in-door-,; in their  houses,  would
\nquite  naturally get panic-stricken and feel  frightened  to
\nmove  about freely in the performance of their normal  daily
\nactivities:  they are also likely to feel scared  of  moving
\nout  during curfew hours with the permission of\t the  autho-
\nrities concerned for doing even most urgent work.  Reference
\nwas  made, by Shri Chatterjee to the decision of this  Court
\nin Re : Sushanta Goswami(1) where the incidents relied\tupon
\nby the
\n(1)  [1969] 3 S. C. R. 138.\n<\/p>\n
867<\/span><\/p>\n
detaining authority were hold to relate only to the  problem
\nof  law and order.  The incidents there do not seem to\tbear
\nany  comparison\t with those before us and  the\tpetitioner’s
\ncounsel\t also ultimately did not seriously press the  point.
\nThe decision reported as Sudhir Kumar Saha v.  Commissioner,
\nCalcutta<\/a>(1) deals with the case of stray incidents and\tdoes
\nnot  constitute any binding precedent for the case in  hand.
\nReference  was further made to Arun Ghosh v. State  of\tWest
\nBengal<\/a>(1)  but\tthere  again the acts  of  the\tdetenu\twere
\ndirected  against  the\tfamily of  one\tindividual  and\t not
\nagainst\t women in general in the locality.  It was  held  in
\nthe   reported\tcase  that  the\t detenu’s  conduct   however
\nreprehensible did not create the situation where it could be
\nsaid  that  the\t life of the community at  large  was  being
\nseriously disturbed or put out of gear : in other words that
\nthere  was  a breach, or likelihood of a breach-  of  public
\norder.\t The reported case is clearly  distinguishable\tacts
\nimputed\t to petitioner in tilt else in hand  directly  raise
\nproblem of public order.  The petitioner and his  associates
\nbelong to a political party and the two ,,rounds are founded
\non  inter-linked  incidents, which are\tclosely\t related  to
\ninter-party clashes preceding the promulgation of the curfew
\norder on October 8, 1 971 following their political opponent
\nJiten  Choudhury’s murder.  The second incident is a  direct
\nviolent\t clash\twith  the police  force\t during\t the  curfew
\nperiod.\t  It  is, therefore, not possible  to  sustain\tShri
\nChatterjee’s contention that these two grounds do not  raise
\nthe  problem  of public order.\tThese facts seem to  bear  a
\nclose resemblance to those of Amiya Kumar Karmakar (Supra).
\nOn  behalf  of\tthe respondent our attention  was  drawn  to
\nShyamal Chakraborty v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta<\/a> (2)
\nwhere the question was discussed in those words :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  question  which arose is this :  do\t the
\n\t      grounds  reproduced  above  relate  merely  to
\n\t\t\t    maintenance\t of order or do they relat
\ne to  the
\n\t      maintenance  of  public order ?\tIt  will  be
\n\t      noticed that the detenu in each of these cases
\n\t      acted  along  with associates who\t were  armed
\n\t      with  lathes, iron rods. acid bulbs, etc.\t  It
\n\t      is  clearly  said\t in ground  no.\t 1  that  be
\n\t      committed\t a  riot and  indiscriminately\tused
\n\t      acid bulbs, iron rods, lathis etc. endangering
\n\t      human  lives.  This ground cannot be  said  to
\n\t      have reference merely to maintenance of  order
\n\t      because it affects the locality and  everybody
\n\t      who lives in the locality.  Similarly, in\t the
\n\t      second  ground, he along with  his  associates
\n\t      prevented\t   the\t police\t  constables\tfrom
\n\t      discharging  their  lawful  duties  and\tthus
\n\t      affected everybody living in the locality.
\n\t      (2)   [1970] 3 S.C.R. 288.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3) [1970] 3 S.C.R. 762.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      868<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      In ground no. 3, again the whole locality\t was
\n\t      in  danger as the. detenu and  his  associates
\n\t      were armed with deadly weapons and these\twere
\n\t      in fact used for indiscriminately\t endangering
\n\t      human  lives in the locality.  The  object  of
\n\t      the  detenu  seems to have been  to  terrorise
\n\t      the, locality and bring the whole machinery of
\n\t      law and order to a halt.\tWe are unable to say
\n\t      that  the Commissioner of Police could not  in
\n\t      view of these grounds come. to the  conclusion
\n\t      that the detenu was likely to act in a  manner
\n\t      prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
\n\t      in the future and it was necessary to  prevent
\n\t      him from doing so.  The fact that public order
\n\t      is  affected  by\tan act\twhich  was  also  an
\n\t      offence  under the Indian Penal Code seems  to
\n\t      us to be irrelevant.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  reasoning\tof this decision fully applies to  the\tcase
\nbefore\tus.  It is quite clear that the petitioner  and\t his
\nassociates  had\t indulged in acts prima\t facie\tdesigned  to
\nterrorise people, to over-owe their political opponents, and
\nto  cow\t down the police force. and all this must  have\t the
\ninevitable  effect of disturbing and paralysing the  normal,
\npeaceful civic life of the general public.  The magnitude of
\nthe impact of the activities of the petitioner and his asso-
\nciates\ton  the peace and tranquillity of  the\tlaw-abiding,
\norderly\t society  clearly shows that they were\tdirected  to
\nbring  a halt to the machinery of law and order.  This\tmust
\nnecessarily  raise  a problem affecting\t public\t order.\t  On
\nthese  grounds the detention order cannot but be held to  be
\njustified.   As\t a  preventive measure\tthis  order  rightly
\nensures\t protection  of\t liberty of  the  public  wrongfully
\nendangered by the petitioner’s terrorising activities.
\nThe  fact that the petitioner was discharged in\t a  criminal
\ncase  for the offences for which he was arrested on  October
\n8,  1971 and that the detention order is dated\tOctober\t 26,
\n1971 when he was still in jail custody would not render\t the
\ndetention  order  either illegal or mala  fide.\t  After\t the
\norder  of discharge the petitioner was going to be  released
\nsoon  and if the detaining authority felt satisfied  on\t the
\nmaterial  before  it  which was germane\t to  the  object  of
\ndetention,  then, the petitioner’s detention is not open  to
\nchallenge in he present proceedings.  His detention is\tpre-
\nventive : he is to be prevented from acting in future in any
\nmanner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.\t His
\nearlier\t discharge  in a court of law  cannot  preclude\t the
\ndetaining authority from coming to a subjective satisfaction
\nabout the necessity of the petitioner’s detention on grounds
\nwhich are germane and relevant.\n<\/p>\n
Before\tclosing we may refer to another point sought  to  be
\nraised\tby  Shri  Chatterjee.  He has  referred\t us  to\t the
\nDefence\t of India Act, 42 of 1971 which came into  force  on
\nDecember 4,
\n869<\/span>
\n1971.  This enactment to amend the Act in several  respects.
\nIt adds S. 17A after S. 17 and the new section provides
\n\t      “Notwithstanding\tanything  contained  in\t the
\n\t      foregoing\t Provisions of this Act, during\t the
\n\t      period  of  operation of the  Proclamation  of
\n\t      Emergency\t issued on the 3rd day of  December,
\n\t      1971,  any person (including a  foreigner)  in
\n\t      respect of whom an order of detention has been
\n\t      made  under this Act, may be detained  without
\n\t      obtaining\t the opinion of the  Advisory  Board
\n\t      for a period longer than three months, but not
\n\t      exceeding\t two  years  from the  date  of\t his
\n\t      detention\t in any of the following classes  of
\n\t      cases   or   under  any\tof   the   following
\n\t      circumstances, namely :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   where such person had been detained with
\n\t      a view to\t preventing  him from acting in\t any
\n\t      manner prejudicial   to the defence of  India,
\n\t      relations of India with foreign powers or\t the
\n\t      security of India…….”\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel apprehending that this amendment of\t the
\nAct may entail the petitioner’s detention beyond a period of
\n12  months as contemplated in the unamended Act, desired  to
\nchallenge this amendment.\n<\/p>\n
In the counter-affidavit, however,. it is averred in para 6A
\nthat  the State Government, while affirming the\t petitioners
\norder  of detention directed on December 24, 1971  that\t his
\ndetention  is to continue till the expiration of  12  months
\nfrom  the date of ,his detention.  The present detention  of
\nthe  petitioner\t is in any event valid under  the  unamended
\nAct.   In  view\t of  this and of para  6A  of  the  counter-
\naffidavit Shri Chatterjee did not press his challenge to the
\nvalidity   of\tthe  aforementioned  amendment.\t   We\tare,
\ntherefore,  not\t called upon to consider the effect  of\t the
\nsaid  amendment on the present case.  It would, however,  be
\nopen  to the petitioner to take whatever suitable steps\t are
\nopen  to him after the expiry of 12 months from the date  of
\nhis detention if he feels aggrieved.\n<\/p>\n
No  fresh  arguments were addressed in the  other  two\twrit
\npetitions and it was conceded that our order in W.P. No. 216
\nof 1972 would also cover the other two petitions.  The final
\nresult\tis  that  all  the  three  petitions  fail  and\t are
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
S.B.W.\t\t\t\t\t\t   Petitions\ndismissed.\n870<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2481, 1973 SCR (1) 859 Author: I Dua Bench: Dua, I.D. PETITIONER: SAMARESH CHANDRA BOSE ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BURDWAN DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/08\/1972 BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. SHELAT, J.M. KHANNA, […]<\/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-180515","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSamaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972 - 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\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972\" \/>\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=\"1972-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-16T04:23:45+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-16T04:23:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972\"},\"wordCount\":4286,\"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\\\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972\",\"name\":\"Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-16T04:23:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972\"}]},{\"@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":"Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972 - 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\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-16T04:23:45+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972","datePublished":"1972-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-16T04:23:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972"},"wordCount":4286,"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\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972","name":"Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-16T04:23:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samaresh-chandra-bose-etc-etc-vs-district-magistrate-burdwan-on-14-august-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Samaresh Chandra Bose Etc. Etc vs District Magistrate, Burdwan on 14 August, 1972"}]},{"@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\/180515","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=180515"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180515\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180515"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}