G.M Lodha, J.:— “Leaving the Head and catching the Tail” “Human Net for fish catch with independence to Crocodile to engulf man and fish alike.” “Permitting black marketing racket architect to go scotfree and resorting to prevention, detention of his tool hireling or benami shadow”, whether a bonafide act in ???he interests of society, is the pivot of legal debate in this Habeas Corpus Petition. The triology of alleged Crocodile, fish and fisherman consists of Sarpanch. Amarsingh, dealer M???endra Kum???r and K.L Meena Enforcement Officer respectively, the net is prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commdities Act, 1980. Alleged fishing manned by District Magistrate, Ajmer, whether bonafide is the billion dollar question?
2. After the above untradi???ional unlocking and an unveiling of the mystry, now the traditional history of the case be narrated. Mahendra Kumar has been detained by the District Magistrate, Ajmer under Section 3 of the Black Marketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The detenue was served with the detention order on 7-7-82 and was put in Jail. The order of the District Magistrate was confirmed by the State Government vide order dated 14-7-82. The grounds of detention were served upon the detenu on 18-7-82, and the copies of those documents are Annexure R. 1 to R. 24. The detention order is Annexure-A, which reads as under:—
3. It is not in dispute that the detention of the accused is primarily based on the F.I.R annexure—R. 21 produced by the respondents. This is a report by Shri K.L Meena Enforcement Officer, Sub-Division, Kekri, Ajmer, addressed to the Incharge of police station, Bhinay. The subject of the report reads as under:—
4. For registering a case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, against Mahendra Kumar son of Mangilal, Amarsingh son of Rajsingh, Ramdev and Sohanlal, F.I.R was recorded.
5. It is common ground between the parties that Amarsingh son of Rajs???ngh resident of Ratakot village is a Sarpanch and also member of the Vigilance Committee constituted by the Collector for guiding, checking and regulating the distribution and sale of essential commodities including the levy sugar. According to this complaint Annexure R21, Sarpanch Amarsingh, Ramdev and Sohanlal Tated instigated and conspired with Mahendra Kumar for misusing and selling in the market unauthorisedly levy sugar of February, 82 and they are all guilty of the offence under section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act read with 107, 109 and 120, I.P.C The relevent portion is as under;—
6. In the body of this complaint, it has been mentioned that Sarpanch Amar Singh entered into co??? s???ir cy with Mah???ndra Kumar for sale of this levy sugar outside Gram Panchayat Ratakot for which it was allotted and at the instance of Amarsingh it was taken to Badanwara by Mahendra Kumar, and then after keeping it at the house of Rampertap Tak for 2-3 days, Amarsihg asked Mahendra Kumar to sell it to Sohanlal Tated, as per advice of Ramdev Bhambhi, and thereafter it was taken to Badanwara and given to Sohanlal Tated at the rate of Rs. 465/- per quintal. According to this F.I.R, out of the total amount of Rs. Rs. 8,835/-, Rs. 6,035/- were taken by Amar Singh, and the balance of Rs. 2,800/- was taken by Mahendra Kumar. It has also been mentioned that even this amount of Rs. 2,800/- was given to Mahendra Kumar through Amarsingh. The relevant averment is as under:—
7. The above first information repo??? (Annexure R 21) contains the follo???-ing important allegations showing that Amarsingh was the architect of this conspiracy and racket:—
8. The above allegations have been made after recording evidence and at the directions of the Assistant Director, Kekri dated 14.7.1982
9. Shri Meena, the Enforcement Officer lodged the above F.I.R on or about 14.7.82 after statements of various witnesses have been recorded on 9.7.82 as per Annexure R. 6 to 20, 22 and 23 and the record seized and inspected.
10. In support of the reply, the respondents have produced and relied upon the statement of Mahendra Kumar dated 11.7.82 Annexure R. 4, material portions of which showing that he was acting as tool in the hands of Srapanch Amarsingh, who was the alleged architect of this black marketing racket, reads as under:—
11. Even other witnesses have corroborated Shri Meena's F.I.R when they state as under:—
12. It would thus be seen that the lion's share was taken by the Sarpanch Amarsingh directly, and even the meagre and minor share of Rs. 2,800/- was given to Mahendra Kumar through Amarsingh. The above facts in the form of allegations in the F.I.R are not in dispute or debated before this Court.
13. Surprisingly enough, the Enforcement Officer himself asserts in this F.???.R. that the Sarpanch Amarsingh not only helped and instigated in making this conspiracy, but he was a conspirator throughout till the end. This allegation coming immediately after disbursement of the amount in which Amarsingh got the lion's share makes it clear that the evil spirit behind this conspiracy was the Sarpanch Amarsingh. It is a different matter that in a court of law this fact is proved or not. In the same F.I.R it is further mentioned that Amarsingh took 93 Kg. and 800 Grams of sugar himself and directed Mahendra Kumar to show the stock as nil. Again, it has been mentioned that Amarsingh, who was the alleged master mind conspirator in this black marketing conspiracy himself verified as member of the Vigilance Committee that for the months of February, 82 and March, 82 sugar has been distributed properly, even though this distribution was never done in the village. In the above context, the statement of Mahendra Kumar detenue Annexure-R. 4 assumes great importance and relevance wherein he says that he was nothing but a tool in the hands of the Sarpanch Amarsingh, and all that was done was at the command of Amarsingh. In all rejoinder filed to the habeas corpus petition, it has been alleged in para 5 that Mahendra Kumar is nothing but a servant of Amarsingh Sarpanch, Page: 141who had got the Benami licence issued in the name of Mahendra Kumar. Para 5 of the rejoinder reads as under:—
“5. That however the detenue's relatives and his counsel Shri Chhaganlal met the detenue on 30th October, 1982 in Central Jail Ajmer. It was revealed by the detenue that he is the only servant of Shri Amarsingh Sarpanch who had got the licence issued in his name. He used to get only ???mpty bags (bories) as consideration for his services. Shree Amar Singh is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ratakot and both Shree Amar Singh and Ram Dev are members of Satrkta Committee whose fiunction is to certify and attest that the levy sugar has been sold to the consumers. This was certified and attested by them. There was no material before the detaining authority or the appropriate Govt. that the sugar was sold by the detenue.”
14. It is a matter of great significance that the respondents have not cared to controvert this allegation, which is duly verified by an affidavit of Mangilal. The helplessness of the respondents is obvious, because as per the F.I.R which again was lodged not by an ordinary person but by the Enforcement Officer. It was Amarsingh Sarpanch who got the lion's share of the profit of this black marketing and not only the profit but the entire amount of sale of sugar was taken by Amarsingh, as it has been mentioned that Rs. 6,035/- were taken by him personally and Rs. 2,800/- were given to Mahendra Kumar through Amar Singh. The head and tail of this alleged black marketing reveals that Amarsingh is the head and Mahandra Kumar is the tail. The detaining authority has allowed the head to go scotfree and caught the tail, whether for statistical purposes or malafidely is another question to be examined.
15. It was in the above circumstances that Mr. M.I Khan, Government Advocate when confronted with speaking facts and glaring features of the case, took time to obtain instructions from the Government in respect of the detention of the detenue Mahendra Kumar, but after taking adjounments he expressed his inability to obtain any order from the Government in any respect whatsoever, and requested the court to decide the case on merits.
16. Undoubtedly, the present one is a case where the detention is being made solely and wholly on the basis of this F.I.R, relevant portions of which have been quoted above, and in which the principal accused, if any, is Amar Singh Sarpanch, and Mahendra Kumar an insignificant humble person is acting as a Benemi tool in the influential hands of the Sarpanch who yields great power politically and administratively both in the village of which he is the head.
17. On the above premises, the question which calls for consideration is, whether on account of the leaving of the head and catching the tail, a detention can be quashed. Seemingly, without any further consideration about the mala-fides or without the finding of malafides or malice, it would be difficult to quash the detention as such. The second and much more important question which arises is, whether the malafides can be inferred from the above admitted or undisputed clear and categorical facts of the case.
18. It is established law that malafides and malice are of several varieties and malafides and malice can be both in fact and law. It is again established law that for malice and malafides direct evidence or proof is not necessary, and in a given set of facts and circumstances, the court can make an inference.
19. Mr. Karnani learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised that the above tantamounts to discrimination and it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, because equal protection of law is denied to the detenue He has placed reliance on the decision in (1) Ram Prasad Narain v. State of Bihar, whe???ein their Lordships have made the following observations:—
“What the equality cause claims is to strike down hostile discrimination or operation of inequality, as the guarentee applies to all persons similarly situated. It is certainly open to the Legislature to classify persons and things to achieve particular legislative object but such selection or differentiation must not be arbitrary and rest upon rational basis having regard to the object which the legislature had in view.”
20. Mr. Karnani's contention is that the detenue Mahendra Kumar himself never indulged in any black marketing activitios of sugar or any other commodity, in as much as all that he was doing was at the dictates command and orders of Sarpanch Amarsingh. According to Mr. Karnani, the above facts provide clinching evidence to show that it was Amaras???gh who directed Mahendra Kumar not to sell the sugar by distribution in the village where it was to be distributed, but to sell it to other persons at flat rate by black marketing. It was he who pointed out the purchaser. Again, it was Amarsingh who settled the price and who obtained the amount himself. It was he who was a member of the Vigilence Commission and he verified false entries and bogus distribution. Mahendra Kumar had no option but to obey the command of Amarsingh and therefore, his action was neither voluntary nor wilful.
21. In view of the above, if the detaining authority in spite of clear, categorical averments and allegations in the F.I.R of the Enforcement Officer, which has been made the basis of detention, and wilfully ignores the major part played by Amarsingh and detains Mahendra Kumar ca??? it be said that there was objective consideration of the material placed before him, and that it wa??? in a bonafide manner. Mr. Khan after taki???g several adjournments was unable to satisfy me why the head has been left and the tail has been caught. All that he said was that in the criminal jurisprudence it is not necessary that if one guilty person is not challaned by the police, the Court should release the person who is found gu???lty. This was hardly any satisfactory reply to the important question posed by the Court, which had wide implications and dimensions. True it is that Article 14 would not apply in the wide sense, as argued by Mr. Karnani, but can we forget or can this Court ignore that when the life and liberty is put in jeopardy by resorting to detention, which is an extra-ordinary weapon in the armoury of the State and is supposed to be used sparingly in extra-ordinary circumstances where the normal process of law by means of prosecution fails to prevent the social crimes like black marketing or smuggling or other anti national activities, the detaining authority is supposed to act with great care and caution and objectively decide on the materiel placed before it whether the detention is inevitable and necessary. It m???st not be forgotten that in case of detention, the detenue neither gets an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, nor any enquiry or trial is held nor he is allowed any opportunity to defend himself against the allegations which are all ex parte. It is a departure from the normal procedure and is to be resorted to in extra-ordinary circumstances That being so, the requirement of objectivity in contrast of subjectivity, and acting bonafidely in contrast to acting malafidely or without care or caution is all the more great for the detaining authority. It never permits a mechanical state of the mind, but it enjoins upon the detaining authority to act in a very intelligent and objective manner and then decide whether the normal procedure of a trial would not be enough and detention is a must in the interest of the society as a whole or public interest.
22. One is to wonder as to what were the circumstances to issue a detention order against Mahendra Kumar in the absence of an earlier detention order against Amarsingh Sarpanch. Since the respondents have not explained this vital lacuna, lapse and surprising feature of thi??? case, this Court has got no option but to infer that there was lack of proper care and caution and that in terms results in lack of bonafides. In the eye of law, lack of due care and caution and lack of bonafides is positively known as “Malafides.”
23. I have got no hesitation in holding that leaving Amarsingh without any cogent reason and failure of the respondents to explain those reasons before this Court and detaining Mahendra Kumar even in spite of the allegations in the F.I.R itself that neither he did the acts voluntarily, nor he got the amount himself, and in face of the clear allegations in the F.I.R that it was Amarsingh who was the evil spirit in this conspiracy of black marketing and who got the lion's share and who provided the umbrella to bogus distribution and false entries and who persuaded and made Mahendra Kumar scap??? goat for satisfying his lust and greed for money by questionable methods vitiates the order as a malafide act. Mahendra Kumar without having any options in the circumstances in which he was placed, as the grant of licence and running of the shop all depends upon the pleasure of the Sarpanch in a small village, where any resistence would result only in his ruin and loosing his only source of livelihood, become the passive agent, as a benami of Amarsingh. The order of detention is, therefore, vitiated, as it has been passed without care and caution and lacks bonafides.
24. In view ???f the above finding, it is not necessary for me to discuss in details the various other submissions made by Mr. Karnani to challenge the detention order, which are as under:—
1. That the detention is illegal and discirminatory because the Sapranch who was also involved was not detained and that there is a solitary action of the commission of Black Marketing activity by the detenue, for which criminal prosecution is enough.
2. that the detenue's representation dated 13th Sept, 1982 was not considered by the State and the Central Government.
3. That the Advisory Board has not assigned reasons for the detention beyond the period of two months.
4. That the detention order was not communicated to the Central Government.
5. That the detenue was not afforded with an opportunity to make representations to the Advisory Board and was not allowed interview with his Advocate or relatives
25. The result of the above discussion is that this Habeas Corpus petition succeeds. The impugned detention order against Mahendra Kumar dated 16-7-82 issued by the District Magistrate. Ajmer under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and the Rules made thereunder, is quashed. It is ordered that Mahendra Kumar son of Mangilal Bagmar, resident of village Jhibiya, P.S Bhinay, T???hsil and District. Ajmer, who is now under detention in Central Jail, Ajmer would be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.