HARI SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY his order dated 19th of April 1950, the learned Chief Justice referred the following two points of law, (1) whether the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 (No. IV [4] of 1950) is intra vires of the Indian Parliament and (ii) whether it is open to a detaining authority to make an order of detention on the ground that the person sought to be detained has committed an offence, to this Bench, as it was deemed necessary to do so in view of their importance and of the conflict in pronouncements by different High Courts in India and of the fact that they have been raised in several cases and are likely to arise in future.

(2.) HARI Singh Petitioner was arrested on the 27th of Magher, 2006 under Section 3 of the Patiala & East Punjab States Union Public Safety Ordinance of 2006 (No. VII [7] of 2006) because he was harbouring dacoits, providing them with meals and information of contemplated police raids and of thus facilitating the commission of dacoities and frustrating police efforts to arrest the dacoits. On 29 -9 -2006, he moved this Court under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure contending that his detention was outside the purview of the provisions of Section 3 and that no report of his arrest and detention had been made to the State Government and that he had not been informed of his right to make a representation. It was also urged by him that the order of his detention was vindictive and had no bona fides behind it. These allegations were being investigated and on 30 -12 -1949 he was enlarged on bail. On 3 -12 -2006 the Court was informed that fresh orders for the arrest and detention of Hari Singh under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 had been made by His Highness the Raj Pramukh on 28 -2 -1950. In view of that order the application became infructuous and was, therefore, dismissed. A fresh application under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure containing a prayer for a writ of habeas corpus upon the State so that the applicant who is alleged to be unlawfully detained in the Patiala Central Jail may be set at liberty, was submitted on his behalf on 3 -12 -2006 and the validity of the order under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was impugned. The reference has arisen out of that application and the same points are also involved in Misc. Application No. 201 of 2006 (Munshi v. State) and No. 202 of 2006 (Kaur Singh v. State).

(3.) THE Preamble of the Act (No. 1950) and its nomenclature indicate that the object with which this law was passed was to provide for preventive detention in certain cases and matters connected therewith. Section 3 confers powers on the Central Government or the State Government, to direct a person to be detained in case it is satisfied that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner that may be prejudicial to: