CHAJU RAM Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Chaju Ram was detained under the orders of the District Magistrate, Jammu passed under Section 3 (2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 on March 30, 1969. The order was served on him the same day and on the original order, we find an endorsement by the Station House Officer to the effect that in compliance with the District Magistrate's order, he arrested Chaju at 6-30 p. m. and that the contents of the order were explained to him in Urdu by reading over the same to him in token of which his thumb impression was obtained on the face of the order. Beneath this endorsement, there is a thumb impression although it is not stated there whose thumb impression it is. In any event, this was in compliance with the direction given in the order itself that notice of the order should be given to Sh. Chaju by reading over the same to him

(2.) As required by Section 8 of the Act, grounds of the order of detention had to be disclosed to Chaju. It is claimed that this was done on April 6, 1969 and that order has been produced before us. The grounds stated as follows:

(3.) Chaju made a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for his release by a writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. Rule nisi on this petition was issued on December 2, 1969. The petition was made from jail and contained not much material except to say that he had been illegally detained for one year and was languishing in jail. In reply to the rule nisi, an affidavit was filed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir Home Department. However, Chaju withdrew that petition with permission to file another petition and he has filed a second petition on January 20, 1970 In this petition he has stated in pares 3, 4 and 6 that he was given some papers five days after Baisakhi (which fell on April 13, 1969) and being an illiterate person, he could not read the contents of the papers given. He also alleged that he was not explained the grounds of his detention and therefore he was deprived of his right of making a representation under the statute.. He also alleged that the grounds on which his detention had been ordered were vague and were not sufficient for him to make a representation if he cared.