Debendra Nath Goswami Vs. the State of West Bengal - Court Judgment |
| Criminal |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Oct-31-1972 |
| Writ Petition No. 258 of 1972 |
| I.D. Dua,; J.M. Shelat and; Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ. |
| AIR1973SC757; 1973CriLJ596; (1973)3SCC901 |
| Constitution of India - Articles 22(5), 32 and 226; Maintenance of Internal Security Act |
| Debendra Nath Goswami |
| The State of West Bengal |
.....the department's appeal. since the finding of the appellate assistant commissioner and also of the tribunal was arrived at by ignoring the relevant facts found by the income-tax officer, the finding was vitiated by an error of law. the high court has also committed an obvious error as to when the ferozepore firm was constituted and that error has led to the further error that the ferozepore firm was sub- partnership in relation to the assessee-firm. moreover the decisions in commissioner of income-tax v. sivakasi match exporting co. [1954] 1 s.c.r. 18 and commissioner of income- tax v. bagyalakshmi & co. [1965] 2 s.c.r. 22 do not apply to the facts of this case, because, the observations in those cases are based on the fact that the person admitted as a partner in the firm seeking registration was admitted as an individual, whereas in the present case one of the partners of the firm seeking registration was a partner in his re- presentative capacity. thus the question in the instant case was a substantial question of law which has not been settled. therefore, the high court should have directed the tribunal to refer the question. [188 h; 190 h. 189 h; 188 a- b; 192 b-d].....december 29, 1971 pursuant to an order of detention made on may 3, 1971. the grounds of detention were served on him at the time of his arrest. the fact of making the detention order was reported to the state government on may 3, 1971, the day it was made. the state government approved that order on may 11, 1971, and also reported that fact to the central government the same day. his representation was received by the state government on january 22, 1972 and was considered by it on february 15, 1972. his case was placed before the advisory board on january 25 1972 and the advisory board made its report on february 17, 1972. the detention was confirmed by the state government on february 25, 1972 and communicated to the petitioner on march 1, 1972.3. the delay by the state government in considering the petitioner's representation is, in our opinion, prima facie unreasonable and it requires satisfactory explanation. the explanation for this delay is contained in para 9 of the counter-affidavit sworn by shri sukumar sen. deputy secretary, home (special) department, government of west bengal on august 21, 1972. it reads as under:9. in this connection i further state that in.....
I.D. Dua, J.
1. Debendra Nath Goswami forwarded through Dum Dum Central Jail an application for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. That petition purported to be made under Article 226 of the Constitution and under Section 491, CrPC. Later he forwarded another application under Article 32 of the Constitution from Burdwan Jail where he was apparently transferred in the meantime, seeking the same relief.
2. The petitioner was arrested on December 29, 1971 pursuant to an order of detention made on May 3, 1971. The grounds of detention were served on him at the time of his arrest. The fact of making the detention order was reported to the State Government on May 3, 1971, the day it was made. The State Government approved that order on May 11, 1971, and also reported that fact to the Central Government the same day. His representation was received by the State Government on January 22, 1972 and was considered by it on February 15, 1972. His case was placed before the Advisory Board on January 25 1972 and the Advisory Board made its report on February 17, 1972. The detention was confirmed by the State Government on February 25, 1972 and communicated to the petitioner on March 1, 1972.
3. The delay by the State Government in considering the petitioner's representation is, in our opinion, prima facie unreasonable and it requires satisfactory explanation. The explanation for this delay is contained in para 9 of the counter-affidavit sworn by Shri Sukumar Sen. Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal on August 21, 1972. It reads as under:
9. In this connection I further state that in considering the said representation of the said petitioner there was a delay of about 25 days. I further state that the said representation could not be considered earlier by the State Government inter alia on the ground that cue to sudden and abrupt increase in numbers of detention cases relating to detentions under the said Act and the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, there were great pressure of works in this department of Home Special and in consequence whereof consideration of urgent cases was a little delayed.
State of West Bengal W.P. No. 174 of 1972, D/- 7-8-1972 : reported in
22(5)
as soon as may be
the earliest opportunity