HARNAM SINGH Vs. CROWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case which was referred to a Division Bench by my brother Soni, J. are briefly these. The petitioner's brother Thakar Onkar Chand was arrested on 16. 5. 1949 in compliance with an order of the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, under Section 3, East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949. The arrest was reported to Govt. under Section 3, Sub-section (2) and the arrested person was committed to jail on 20. 5. 1949. Thereafter the Provincial Government by an order dated 8. 6. 1949 passed under Section 3, Sub-section (3) of the Act committed the detenu to jail until further orders. On 6. 8. 1949 the detenu was handed a communication containing the grounds on which the order for his detention had been made. On 10. 10. 1949, Thakar Harnam Singh, the brother of the detenu, presented a petition in this Court under Section 491, Criminal P. C. It was alleged in this petition that the detenu was arrested because he had given expression to his dissatisfaction with the conduct of the police in dealing with the property of Muslim evacuees. The police had, therefore, acted mala fide and although the detenu was a loyal and patriotic subject the police had taken him into custody simply because he had criticised their actions. It was further alleged that the "charge sheet", which presumably means the grounds referred to in Sub-section (5), was supplied after a great deal of delay and that the grounds were false, vague and evasive.

(2.) TWO points have been raised before us by Mr. Amar Chand who appeared in support of this petition. He contended in the first place that the grounds given to the detenu were vague and evasive and that the supply of these grounds did not amount to proper compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 3. In the second place, he contended that the grounds should have been supplied within a reasonable time and inasmuch as they were delayed for n period of nearly three months, Onkar Chand's detention was illegal.

(3.) WITH regard to the first point the proviso to Sub-section (5) makes it clear that the vagueness or insufficiency of grounds cannot render the detention illegal. This proviso reads as follows: