SHAMEEM VS BANGLADESH 47 DLR AD 1995

 

 Analysis of the Fact:

Appellant Md. Shameem challenged the detention of his brother Md. Shaheen under the Special Powers Act, 1974. His brother was arrested under section 19(a) and (f) of the Arms Act, 1878 on 9^th June, 1994. On 11^th June, 1994 the order of detention was made for 30 days. On 26^th June, 1994 a memorandum of ground was served on the detenue.

Argument from the petitioner:

It was argued that

 Since a specific criminal case had already been started against the detenue, the same offence allegedly committed by him could not be a ground for detention under Special Powers Act, 1974 because in as much as no two proceedings could be taken against the detenue for the same offence.

 The grounds of detention were so vague, indefinite and unspecified that the detenue had been deprived of his right to make an effective representation before the authorities concerned under the section 8 of the Special Power Act, 1974.

 The grounds were illegally served on the detenue beyond the statutory period prescribed in section 8 of the Special Power Act, 1974.

Argument from the Respondent;

There was no argument from the Respondent.

Issue:

Whether the order of preventive detention was given with lawful authority or not?

Decision:

Md. Shaheen is being detained without lawful authority he should be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.

  

Reasoning behind the decision:

The order of preventive detention was without lawful authority on the following grounds that the detenue was deprived of his right to make an effective representation before the Advisory Board because grounds of detention were served beyond the statutory period as per the section 4 of the Special Power Act, 1974.

Principle:

Unless the crime is highly dangerous the same person cannot be punished for the same offence under two different Acts.

Importance of this case:

In the case of Shameem vs Bangladesh Appellate Division has provided some judicial guide lines regarding preventive detention so that executive authority cannot use this power capriciously. Though it was said in this case that a person can be arrested under the power of preventive detention during the pendency of a criminal suit but that is to be highly dangerous and the detaining authority has to take the burden of proof that the order of detention has been taken with lawful authority. In this case the application for Habeous Corpus has given the priority among all the pending suits.