ASFAQ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Asfaq alias Bhoore questions the validity of his detention under Section 3, National Security Act, authorised by the District Magistrate, Meerut, vide order dated 3. 9. 1983.

(2.) IN connection with an offence under Section 307, I. P. C. , said to have been committed on 2. 4. 1983, petitioner Asfaq was arrested on 28. 8. 1983 and was remanded to jail custody. While he was still in jail custody, District Magistrate, Meerut passed an order for his detention under Section 3, National Security Act, on 3. 9. 1983. The said order as well as the grounds on which it was based were served upon the petitioner the same day. On 18. 9. 1983, the petitioner made a representation against his detention which was forwarded to the State Government. In due course the matter was placed before the Advisory Board and the State Government, after considering the report of the Advisory Board and petitioner's representation, confirmed his detention, vide its order dated 25. 10. 1983. Aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's continued detention under the provisions of Section 3, National Security Act, stands vitiated inasmuch as the representation made by him on 18. 9. 1983 was not placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks of his detention (3. 9. 1983 ). In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is mentioned that petitioner's representation along with the comments of the Detaining Authority, dated 22. 9. 1983 was received by the State Government on 23. 9. 1983. It was placed before the Advisory Board on the same day i. e. , on 23. 9. 1983. This averment made in the counter-affidavit was sworn on the basis of record. The record produced before us by the State Counsel on 8/9th. 1. 1984, however, merely indicated that on 23. 9. 1983 an order had been made that the representation should be placed before the Advisory Board immediately but then it did not indicate that the said representation had actually been forwarded to the State Government on that very day. Accordingly we directed the Government Advocate appearing for the respondents to obtain a certificate from the Advisory Board mentioning the date on which the representation dated 18. 9. 1983 was actually received by the Advisory Board. Learned Government Advocate had produced D. O. No. 8/1984, dated 13. 1. 1984 written by the Registrar of the High Court acting as Secretary to U. P. Advisory Board (Detentions), High Court Building at Lucknow addressed, to Joint Secretary, Confidential Department-6, Lucknow according to which the said representation had actually been received by the Advisory Board on 23. 9. 1983. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of fact stated in the D. O. dated 13. 1. 1984. It thus appears that petitioner's representation dated 18. 9. 1983 had been placed before the Advisory Board within 21 days of petitioner's representation. We are accordingly not satisfied that petitioner's continued detention stands vitiated on this account.