GOLO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four cases (Climinal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 48 and 49 and 51 and 52 of 1967) are the remnants of a bunch of five cases which were registered in this Court inconsequence of my visit to Solan Sub-Jail on 14th June, 1967. While inspecting that Sub-Jail, it appeared to me that these five persons, to whom those five criminal miscellaneous petitions relate were being detained without authority of law. On my return here, I directed show cause notices to go to the authorities concerned to produce the record and the persons detained in this Court and to Justify their detention under the law. On 20th June, 1967, Shri K. C. Pandit appeared in opposition to the show cause notices and asked for time for putting in appropriate returns. He, however, conceded that Nek Ram was entitled to be set at liberty because the Government had already decided to release him on the ground that he was reported to have been cured of the mental malady from which he was supposed to be suffering. We accordingly made an order releasing him on 20th June l967. Cr. Misc. No. 50 of 1967 was thus disposed of on that date. We are now concerned with the remaining four petitions, in which Shri K. C. Pandit has appeared in opposition to the show cause notice and Sarvshri H. S. Thakar, M. R. Gupta, Chhabil Das and Sushil Malhotra advocates have, in accordance with the high traditions of the bar in this Republic. been good enough to agree to assist this Court as amicus curiae. We will now deal with each one of these four petitions seperately Before dealing with them, however, it may appropriately be stated at the outset that on behalf of the State, no obJection has been raised to the show cause notices having been issued by this Court suo motu and, in our opinion, rightly so, because there is authority for the view that if this Court is apprised of the material which prima facie suggest illegality of the detention or custody, then this Court can, for the ends of Justice proceed to issue a show cause notice for determining the legality of the detention in question. In all the four cases, we passed short-final orders on 22nd June 1967 reserving reasons to be given later. We now proceed to give our reasons. Dealing first with Criminal Miscellaneous No. 51 of 1967. Golo v. State, we find that on 4th February, 1967, the Station House Officer, Dhalli Police Station, recorded a note to the effect that Golo or Ghawal, as described by the Station House Officer in the said note, wha originally belonged to Tibet, came to India with his brother Doga at the time of China Tibet conflict. For some time he stayed at Rampur and thereafter he came to Kinnaur where he worked as mule teer. There he is, reported to have developed insanity and as a resalt of treatment at Ripon Hospital, Simla, was cured of the malady. Thereafter he again started doing his regular work and for two years proceeding, he had been doing work at Sainj. For five or six days, this man again became in sane and started talking irrelevant things and also started throwing stones on the people. His brother Doga took him to Kasumpti for treatment on 2nd February, 1967, but his condition appeared to deteriorate day by day. -On 4th February, 1967, Golo caught hold of a pup and killed it, later he caught hold of another dog and wanted to kill that too. Golo, according to this report, had thus become a dangerous lunatic, who tried to throw stones on the public. The Station House Officer arrested Golo in these circumstances, treating him to be a dangerous lunatic. This report is Annexture 'B' to the return. On 4th Feburary, 1967, the General Assistant to the District Magistrate made an order purporting to act for the District Magistrate directing Ghawal to be kept in )adicial lock up at Kasumpti till further orders, adding that the said Ghawal be got medically examined. The Superintendent, Snowdon Hospital, was accordingly asked to send his report after examining Ghawal lunatic before 7th Feburary, 1967. This order is Annexure 'C' to the retarn. Annexure 'D' which purports to be the opinion of the Medical Specialist, Snowdon Hospital, dated 6th Feburary, 1967 is in the following words :-

(2.) The question on these facts arises whether Golo's present detention in Sub-Jail at Solan is lawful Before dealing with the legal question, we must point out that the returns in all these cases do not conform to the rules framed on the subject because they arc not in the form of affidavits duly sworn by some one having knowledge of the facts asreted therein. These returns are more in the form of comments by the District Magistrate which are not even verified in the manner in which the pleadings have to be verified. In future, this Court would insist on a proper return being made and if the return is not in accordance with the rules framed by this Court, then such a return would not be taken into consideration. The indulgence shown by this Court on the present occasion is not to be cited as a binding precedent in any comparable circumstances in future.

(3.) It is concededthat proceedings against Golo were started under section 13 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912. This section provides as under:-