GAUTAM SAIKIA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Civil Rules in which common questions of fact and law are involved are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment

(2.) DETENU Gautam Saikia is the petitioner in Civil Rule (HC) 156 of 1983 and detenu Chakren Saikia is the petitioner in Civil Rule (HC) 157/83. The petitions are for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the detention order made on 25 -3 -83 by the District Magistrate. Sibsagar. Jorhat. The detention order was passed under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), on his being satisfied that it was necessary to detain them with a view to preventing them from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Both of them were under arrest at the time when the order of detention was passed in connection with some police cases. The order of detention was served on them while they were under custody in jail. The grounds of detention were furnished to the detenus on 29 -3 -83 and the detaining authority reported the fact of detention to the State Government on 26 -3 -83 with particulars having bearing on the matter, in compliance with Section 3(41) of the Act. The State Government approved the detention order on 2 -4 -83. The State Government on the same date i.e. on 2 -4 -83 communicated the factum of detention together with the grounds on which the order has been made, in compliance with Section 3(51) of the Act to the Central Government.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners confines herself to ground No. 4 in Annexure II and submits that the seizure memo of the incriminating articles said to have been seized from the possession of the detenu Gautam Saikia in connection with Mariani P. S. Case No. 47/83 under Section 25(1) of Arms Act read with Section 122, I.P.C. and Case No. 48/ 83 under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act read with Section 122. I.P.C. as well as the two F.I.Rs. in two cases above, formed an integral part of the ground No. 4. That these documents were not furnished to the detenus and, as such, failure on the part of the detaining authority has deprived the detenus of making effective representation in exercise of fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and on that count alone it is submitted, the detenus are entitled to be released forthwith.