PARWATIBAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the wife of the detenu challenges an order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police on 29-7-1953. This order was confirmed by Government on 4-8-1953. The de-'tenu could not be traced and therefore an order was issued by the Commissioner under Section 6 of the Preventive Detention Act and it was published on 14-1-1954. The detenu was arrested on 24-7-1955 and was put up before a Presidency Magistrate for having committed a breach of the order Issued under Section 6. He was released on bail and he was continued on bail till 19-8-1955. On that day a charge-sheet was filed against him and the bail was cancelled. On that very day the petitioner's husband was detained pursuant to the order passed. 011 29-7-1953. It is this detention which has been challenged by this petition.

(2.) WHAT is urged by Mr. Gumaste with con. siderable force is that the Parliament has afford-ed a very important safeguard to the subject by Act 61 of 1952 which introduced Section 11-A in the Preventive Detention Act, and under that section no person who has been detained under the Act can be continued in detention for a longer period than one year. The reason underlying that amendment is that the Parliament wanted to give an opportunity to a person who was suspected of prejudicial activities after a lapse of certain time to turn over a new leaf. The Parliament also thought that the danger to the State by the activities of a particular per-son could not extend beyond a period of one year and that a safe risk could be taken by the State in releasing the detenu after a lapse of a year. It is always open to the State Government to issue another order if the person detained and who was released under Section 11-A continued in his prejudicial activities. But the principle of indefinite detention was put an end to by the new section which was introduced under the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act.

(3.) THE Government Pleader says rightly that what is rendered invalid by Section 11-A is continued detention for more than one year; in this case the detenu was not detained at all, and al-though his detention commenced from 19-8-1955, the order passed on 29-7-1953 was still a good and valid order under which action could be taken by the State of Bombay.