Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SASTHI KEOT versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided
8 February 1974
Judges listed
V.R. KRISHNA IYER (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Allowed

Citations

Official
[1974] 3 S.C.R. 313 · 1974 INSC 25
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KRISHNA IYER, J .-The petitioner has moved this Court under art 32 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of habeas carpus, he being under detention by order of the District Magistrate, Burdwan, under sub-s.(1), read with sub-s.(2) of s. 3 of MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971). Various grounds, similar to those considered by us in Bhut Nath Mate v. Slate of West Bengal( have beerr urged, and our conclusions thereon are similar to those we hav~ already express:d in the other writ petitions.

p. 313, margin F

It is important to note that in the aflidavit-in-opposition, filed behalf of the respondent we find a statement as under :

p. 313, margin G

"! further state that it appears from the records that the detenue petitioner is a man of desperate habits and dangerous character and also prone to committing theft of underground tele-communication cable."

p. 313, margin G

Pctitio;N;-1456 or-i91J; February 1974.

p. 313, margin H

This has been relied upon by the State as additional ground support of the detention, apart from the theft of cables, recited in the detention order and repeated in tho counter affidavit. Counsd camlidl; admitted that this additional circumstance had been placed bdorn the State Government and the Advisory board, and certainly was before the District Magistrate when he passed the detention order. It i' perfectly plain that the authorities have been influenced by the 1cpon of lhe police that the petitioner was "a man of desperate habits and uangeruus character and also prone to committing theft of underground cables." We do not regard 'desperate habits' and 'dangerous .:haractcr" aS anything but yague. Apart from the vice of vagueness which perhap~ may not matter so far as the satisfaction of the authorities is concerned. every desperate. or dangerous man cannot be run down under s. 3 of MISA. Moreoy,cr, this vital yet injurious dossier about the petitioner has not hecn communicated to him and opportunity afforded for making a proper representation contra. Therefore there is violation both of art. 22(5) of the Con,titution and of s.3(3) of the Aet. In this vie1L we are constrained to quash the dctcn.tion order on the petitioner and direct his release. · P.B.R. Petition allowed.

p. 314, margin A