ABDUL GHANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art 226 of the Constitution, read with Sec 491, CrPC the petitioner has challenged his detention under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Central Act 26 of 1971), (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')

(2.) Most of the material facts are not in disute. The Dist. Magistrate, Gulbarga, Respt.2 herein), by his order dt.27-8-1973 (Ext.A), made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sec.(2)Off S.3 of the Act, directed that the petitioner be detained in Central Jail, Bellary. On the same day, a communication (Ext B)starting out the grounds on which the declaration of the petitioner was ordered, was addressed him. On 3-9-73, the Dist. Magistrate reported to the State Govt the fact nf his having made the order, Ext A. By its order dt.7-9-1973 (Ext.C), the Govt. approved the aforesaid order of the Dist. Magistrate. On 13-9-1073 the petitioner made a representation to the Government against that order. The State Govt. referred his case to the Advisory Board which gave a personal hearing to him and after considering his representation, reported to the Government that there was sufficient cause for his detention After considering that report, the Government by its order dt.21-11-1973 (Ext.F) confirmed his detention and directed continuance thereof up to 26-8-1974.

(3.) Of the several contentions urged by Mr V Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is sufficient to consider only one. He argued that in the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner under S.3 of the Act, there was a serious mis-statement that he was convicted in CrI Case No 82/S of 1966 by the Court cf the Munsiff Magistrate, Gulbarga and sentenced to a fine of Rs.100 and in default, one month's simple imprisonment, though as a matter of fact, that conviction was set aside in appeal Mr. Krishna Murthy maintained that as one of the grounds on which the detention of the petitioner was ordered by the Dial Magistrate was non-existent the order of detention was bad in law