IN RE: V. VENKATARAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by V. Venkataraman, an advocate of this Court who has been working in the office of Messrs. Row and Reddy, advocates, Madras, under B. 491, Criminal P. 0., for his release from detention. The application is supported by an affidavit from Mr. V. G. Row, senior partner of the advocates' firm, and it is stated therein that the detenu was arrested at his residence at Thyagarayanagar at about 6 a.m. on 1st April 1948 and was now being detained in the Vellore Central Jail. It is also alleged in that affidavit that from his house he was first taken to the Saidapet police lock -up and kept there until 6 p.m. on 1st April and it was only at 6 -30 p.m. on that day that he was removed to the Madras Penitentiary where he was detained until 8th April when he was transferred to the Vellore Sub jail When he was at the Saidapet police look -up it would appear that he asked for the arrest and search warrants to be shown to him, under whose authority he was arrested and his house searched. No such document was shown to him, but he was informed that those acts were done under the provisions of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947. A similar request was repeated when the detenu was in the Penitentiary, and the Superintendent read out the order of detention which was signed by the Commissioner of Police and dated 1st April 1948. It is emphatically averred by Mr. Row in his affidavit that since August 1947 the detenu has not been - an office -bearer or a member of any Trade Union or in any way connected with such organisations and that he has been doing exclusively professional work in the various Courts in the city and has not been doing anything prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in any way. A definite suggestion was made by the deponent in that affidavit that the Commissioner of Police, Madras, passed the order only on 1st April 1948 and after the arrest of the petitioner and not before, and that the Commissioner could not 'have had any reasonable grounds for suspecting that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) A affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Provincial Government which states that the petitioner is a leading communist of Madras, that the order of detention was issued by the Commissioner on 1st April 1948 and that on the same day he intimated to Government the fact of issue of the order of detention along with the grounds for detention. These grounds were des -patched on 24th April 1948 to the Central Jail, Vellore, for service on the detenu. The grounds Bet out in that communication are as follows:

(3.) THE main contentions put forward on behalf of the petitioner are the following: It is argued that in the present case the arrest and detention of the petitioner preceded the statutory satisfaction that is contemplated in Section 2 of the Act. Next it is urged, so far as the earlier grounds are concerned, that a scrutiny thereof would show that all of them related to past acts, and that in view of the categorical statement made by Mr. Row, the senior partner of the firm, that the detenu had ceased all his connections with the Trade Union and was wholly devoting himself to professional work, there is nothing to show that there was any continuity in the prejudicial conduct of the detenu so as to attract the application of the Act. Yet another ground put forward is that the various acts referred to in the communication of the Government formed part of certain previous proceedings under the corresponding Ordinance and those proceedings having subsequently been dropped and the detenu released there is no justification to base a fresh action upon the same grounds. Lastly two objections of a technical nature were also put forward that the order containing the grounds was not signed by the Chief Secretary and that the Act having been first passed to be in effect for one year and having been subsequently under powers vested in that behalf extended for another year, the original delegation of powers of the Provincial Government to the Commissioner did not remain in force and that during the extended period of the Act in the absence of a further notification extending the period of the delegation, the Commissioner had no power to make an order of detention.