EMPEROR Vs. KESHAV GOKHALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are unanimous in our opinions on the various questions which have been raised, and the judgment I am about to deliver is the judgment of this full bench.

(2.) WE have before us two petitions under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, of Mr. Keshav Govind Gokhale, who has been brought up from Belgaum Central Prison where he is under detention. From these petitions which are duly affirmed it appears that Mr. Gokhale is a pleader practising in the Courts of the District of Belgaum and is also a Member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly. The following further facts, some of which appear in Mr. Gokhale's petitions, are not in dispute: (1) That the arrest was made under Rule 129 of the Defence of India Rules by a Sub-Inspector of Police at Nippani which is forty-four miles from Belgaum at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of August 9, 1942. (2) That Mr. Gokhale was on the day following conveyed to Belgaum Central Prison, where he was detained until the middle of March 1943, being then transferred to Nasik Road Central Prison, and subsequently retransferred to Belgaum Central Prison, from whence he has been produced before us pursuant to an order of this Court. (3) That the document, by virtue of which Mr. Gokhale is detained, was signed by Mr. C. N. Millard, District Magistrate of Belgaum, on August 9, 1942, in point of time before the actual arrest. (4) That on the same day as Mr. Gokhale was arrested Mr. Millard issued a document or documents which led to the detention of about thirty other persons. (5) That as a result of reading an account in the newspapers of a decision of the Federal Court, Mr. Gokhale applied on September 2, 1943, to the District Magistrate at Belgaum for a copy of the order under which he was detained. That he was not supplied with any copy until November 7, 1943.

(3.) THE relevant portions of Rule 26, as it stood on August 9, 1942, were as follows: (1) THE Central Government or the Provincial Government, if it is satisfied with respect to any particular person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of British India, the public safety, the maintenance of public order, His Majesty's relations with foreign powers or Indian States, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in tribal areas or the efficient prosecution of the war it is necessary so to do, may make an order;. . . (b) directing that he be detained. Sub-rule (5) provides that so long as there is in force in respect of any person such an order directing detention, the person detained shall be liable to be detained in such place and under such conditions as the Central Government or the Provincial Government may from time to time determine.