PADAM KUMAR JAIN Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application of one Padam Kumar Jain under Section 491, Criminal P. C., calling in question the legality of his detention in the District Jail at Agra by virtue of an order of detention passed by the U. P. Government under Section 3, U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947, on the ground that the grounds of detention furnished to him under Section 5 of that Act are vague and indefinite and are not sufficient to enable him to make a proper representation to the Government as contemplated by that section.

(2.) In the case of Rex v. Durga Das, 1948 A. L. J. 491: (A. I. R. (36) 1949 ALL. 148), a Full Bench of this Court has held that where the ground and particulars supplied to the detenu under Section 5 of the Act are indefinite or incomplete and do not convey sufficient information to the detenu to enable him to make a representation that the detaining authority was wrong in its belief that his detention was necessary in the interest of the public safety the further detention of such detenu becomes illegal. The learned Additional Government Advocate has, however, drawn my attention to the recently promulgated Act-- the U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment and Proceedings Validation) Act, 1949 (U. P. Act XI [11] of 1949)--and points out that the validity of such detention can no longer be challenged on the above ground in view of the provisions of Section 8 of that Act.

(3.) This Act has amended Section 5 of the principal Act and the Proviso to the new section runs as follows: "Provided that neither the said order nor the detention of the said person thereunder shall be deemed to be invalid or unlawful or improper on the ground of any defect, vagueness or insufficiency of the communication made as aforesaid." It would thus appear that in the case of persons detained subsequent to the passing of this Amendment Act, Courts cannot go into the question whether the grounds upon which an order of detention is based and which are communicated to the detenu in pursuance to the amended Section 5 are vague and indefinite.