INDRA PRAKASH KAHOL Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure filed by Indra Prakash Kahol on behalf of his brother, Om Parkash Kahol who was arrested on 16 -5 -1950, under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act (IV [4] of 1950) under the orders of the District Magistrate, Ambala, and ordered to be detained for two months. The detenu is a M.Sc., and B.T., and at the time of his arrest occupied the post of a Professor in the Sanatan Dharam College, Ambala Cantonment. The copy of the grounds of his detention which was supplied to him a few days after his arrest under Section 7 of the Act reads:

(2.) THE principal ground on which the validity of the order of detention has been challenged before me is the second, namely, that the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu in compliance with the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act are vague and indefinite, inasmuch as they are too general and do not specify the acts and particular speeches complained of, nor do they indicate when and where, whether privately or on public platform, the detenu had stated that for every Hindu killed many more Muslims should be killed. There is no doubt that vagueness and indefiniteness in the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu for the purpose of, enabling him to make a representation to the State is a ground, for holding the detention to be invalid and ordering his release. In a recent order of the Supreme Court the release of two detenus from the State of the Punjab was ordered simply and solely on account of the fact that the grounds of detention supplied to them under Section 7 were vague and indefinite. The order in question is a very brief one and does not contain any detailed discussion of the point, but there is a reference in it to authorities, and presumably the cases cited before me are among the authorities referred to. The first of these cases is reported as Inder Prakash v. Emperor, A.I.R. (36) 1949 ALL. 37 :, 50 Cr.L.J. 34 -in which the release of a number of detenus was ordered by Raghubar Dayal J., on the ground that the grounds supplied to the detenus under the provisions of Section 5, U.P. Maintenance of Public Order Act were vague and did not comply with the provisions of the section. A similar course was also followed by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court consisting of Malik C.J., Raghubar Dayal and, Wanchoo JJ. in the case reported, as Durga Das v. Rex, A.I.R. (36) 1949 ALL. 148 :, 50 Cr.L.J. 214 F.B. The provisions of Section 5 of the U.P. Act in question are :