LOITONGBAM DHIREN Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a detenue held currently in Manipur Central Jail at Imphal under the provisions of National Security Act. Order of detention was issued by District Magistrate, Imphal District on 1 st March, 1997 under sub- section 3 of Section 3 read with Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The said order of detention was approved by order dated 10th March, 1997 issued by the Government of Manipur Under Section 3(4) of the said Act, By another order dated 4th April, 1997 issued by the Government, the order of detention was confirmed and the Governner was pleased to fix the period of detention for 12 (twelve) months from the date of detention. The order of confirmation was issued on receipt of report from the Advisory Board Constituted under Section 9 of the said Act. Grounds of detention were furnished to the detenue on 5th March, 1997.

(2.) On receipt of grounds of detention the petitioner filed representation to the State Government as well as to the Central Government on 14.3.1997. It may be stated that the State Government rejected the representation and it was communicated to the petitioner on 19.3.1997. This petition was filed in the month of May, 1997. It is contended that at the time of filing of this petition the representation filed before the Central Government had not been disposed of inasmuch as the petitioner was not informed the result of his representation at that may, however, be stated that in terms of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, the representation filed before the Central Government was disposed of and in fact communicated to the detenue through the State Government on 9.5.97.

(3.) Para 1 of the grounds of detention states that the petitioner joined banned Organisation known as United National Liberation Front,, UNLF, some time in the last part of June, 1993. He was given assignment in finance section of the said Organisation under the command of Mr. Dinesh Singh from November, 1993 to second week of October, 1994. It is also stated that the petitioner also received military training some -where in Myanmar territory along with other persons. It is further mentioned that statements of some persons were recorded as regards the activities of the petitioner . particularly statements of two persons viz, statements of Loitongbam Nanao Singh @ Birjit and Ningthoujam Suresh Singh Naocha. Statement of Loitongbam Nanao Singh was recorded on 22.11.1996 whereas the statement of Ningthoujam Suresh Singh Naocha. Statement of Loitongbam Nanao Singh was recorded on 22.11.96 where as the statement of Ningthoujam Suresh Singh was recorded on 16.2.1996. The said two persons were arrested along with the petitioner. Hence they were co- accused in connection with the same activities of which the petitioner is accused. Para 3 of the grounds of detention further states.