AMNA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN para 7 of the petition, it has been mentioned that the petitioner (meaning thereby detenu) was detained by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, vide order dated 12.8.1993, on alleged 10 grounds, as narrated in the attached chart. The petitioner was earlier detained and released by the Advisory Board twice, and, at that relevant time, out of 10 charges, 8 were narrated, and, thus, there was no reason for the District Magistrate to add the aforesaid 8 grounds afresh, in order to make out a case against the petitioner. In the affidavit, filed by the petitioner Shrimati Amna Begum, it has been stated that "the detenu was earlier released by the Advisory Board, Jabalpur, in 1991 and 1992. Even then, the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, relied on incidents pertaining to those years and furnished false and fabricated documents before the Advisory Board, in order to obtain a favourable order. In this manner, the detention of my son has been held legal.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, no return had been filed - although the respondents, when called upon to answer a rule issued on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, were under an obligation to submit their return and to place all the relevant facts before the Court, but the same has not been done. Therefore, in the absence of any return, on behalf of the respondents, submission made in para 7 of the petition, and reiterated in the affidavit of the petitioner, that the detenu had been earlier released by the Advisory Board, Jabalpur, in 1991 and 1992, has to be accepted, as the same had not been controverted on behalf of the respondents. The first 8 grounds, mentioned in Annexure -A, could not have been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, while passing the impugned order of detention dated 12.8.1993. Besides this, out of the first 8 grounds mentioned in Annexure -A, 7 grounds relate to incidents which had taken place in the year 1991 and ground No.8 relates to the incident which had taken place on 6.1.1992 and, thus, states as a long period had elapsed between the said incidents and the date when the order of detention was passed in the present case. Grounds 1 to 8, mentioned in Annexure -A, should not l1ave been considered and repeated afresh - when the same had been considered earlier and that the detenu had been released twice by the Advisory Board in the years 1991 and 1992. This view also finds support from (1989) 2 SCC 318 (Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. N.L. Kahar and others).