S N TANGRI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sri S.N. Tangri is a resident of Lucknow. He was detained by an order dated the 8th August, 1960, passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, under Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, The detention order was executed; so is the allegation of the petitioner, while he was present in front of the Filmistan Cinema situate at Hazratganj, Lucknow. This was done by Ran Bahadur Singh Station Officer. Police Station, Hazratganj. According to the petitioner though he was taken in custody at the place mentioned by the abovenamed police officer, the said police officer failed to show him the warrant of arrest which might have been issued by any competent authority. His allegation further is that after his arrest he was taken to the police station, Hazratganj, where he was served with the detention order issued by the District Magistrate.

(2.) Consequent upon his detention the. petitioner had been served by the District Magistrate, who made the detention order, the reason for his detention. In due course the Advisory Board examined the case and also held that there was sufficient cause for detention. We are, however, not concerned in this petition with any of those facts as -the only question raised here is about the constitutionality of the petitioner's detention for the reason, as alleged, that at the time when he was taken into custody the police officer, though asked, had failed to show him the detention order or to communicate to him the grounds for his arrest.

(3.) The above allegation, namely, that the detention order had not been shown to him or that the cause for detention had not been communicated to him, is denied by the respondent who have produced an affidavit also of the officer who effected the petitioner's arrest. His assertion is that he had actually communicated these details to him. In view of the affidavit and the unequivocal assertion therein that the above details had been actually carried out, we have considerable difficulty in accepting the contrary Version by the petitioner who is an interested party. We however, consider that it is not necessary for disposing of this petition to pursue the above controversy on facts further.