JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, for the release of Ganda Singh, son of Narain Singh, of Nagri from the Central Jail, Patiala, where he was alleged to be illegally detained. It was submitted that no order of detention had been served upon or communicated to the detenu & that if any order had been made, that was not by a competent authority & was passed with some ulterior motives without the required satisfaction of the detaining authority. As regards the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu, it was stated that they were baseless & concocted. In the reply on behalf of the State it was urged that Ganda Singh was detained for six months by a valid order of the Govt. which had been duly served to the detenu. It was further maintained that the order had been made by a competent authority on the satisfaction that the detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The particulars supplied in the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu on the very day of his arrest, were stated to be all true & within the scope of the Act. A copy of the detention order, dated 21-10-50, purporting to be signed by the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. & also a copy of the grounds of detention served on the detenu were put in with the reply. The order says that His Highness the Rajpramukh was satisfied with respect to Ganda Singh that his detention for six months under Sub-section (1) of Section 3, Preventive Detention Act, was necessary for preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He was, therefore, ordered to be detained for the said period in the police lock-up Sangrur. In the grounds of detention it was mentioned that the detenu was a habitual harbourer of dacoits & that he had harboured the gang of a notorious dacoit, Dulla Singh, on 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th October, 1950 in the crops of his village & supplied them with meals.

(2.) A number of points are raised by Shri Daya Sarup, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, against the validity of the detention order & the legality of further detention of the detenu. In the first instance it was contended that the resp. had not produced the order by which the detenu was arrested & detained, What had been placed on the record was only a copy of some order certified as a true copy by Shri Chetan Das, A.A.G. The argument is that the Govt. should have on the issue of this Rule produced the original order & that the copy placed with the reply could serve no useful purpose. Refuting the argument Shri Chetan Das urges that a copy of the original order which had been & was still with him was placed on the record according to the general practice in such cases and that the original was shown in Court & also to the counsel on the opposite side. No objection on any of the previous hearings of the case & when the evidence of the parties was recorded having been taken, the original remained with him, & that he was now putting it on the record. Technically the objection of the counsel for the Petitioner is correct. The resp. should have produced & placed on record the original order, or a copy thereof permissible under the law. But in view of the fact that no objection to the placing on record of the copy was taken at any previous stage of the case & the original having been now put in, it cannot be said that the arrest & detention of Ganda Singh were without any order of the Govt. or that the same were unauthorised. I is also significant that the Petitioner examined S. Balwant Singh who signed the order on behalf of the Govt., as his witness & got elicited from him facts that resulted in the said order. He deposed that on receipt of information regarding the subversive activities of the detenu the matter was got verified from various officers of the C.I.D. as well as the Inspector General of Police. All the material along with the proposal of the Inspector General of Police was placed before the Minister-in-charge who made the detention order in this case. The counsel during examination of this witness did not ask for the original to be produced or put to the witness. He in fact did not challenge the allegation of the resp. that there was an order of the Govt., which was signed by the witness on its behalf. In the face of these facts & the original being now before me & having been put on the record, the objection looses all its force. The facts of the case, Gokulchand V. Emperor, 1945 AIR(Nag) 203, cited by the learned Counsel in support of his argument were, however, quite different. In that case the original order of detention was never brought before the Court & the Crown relied only on an uncertified copy of the order. The District Magistrate to whom a notice had been issued to produce the order under which the applicant was detained, said in reply that it was not with him & that it could be obtained from the Superintendent of the Jail. On a requisition made to the latter, he produced an order which had been superseded by the one on which the Crown wanted to rely, & a copy of which had been produced. Under these circumstances it was observed that it was not the business of the Court to go from one authority to the other to get the original order or detention, & that the Court could not act merely on an uncertified copy that had been brought on the record.

(3.) Next it is urged that it is incumbent on the executive to deliver a copy of the order of arrest & detention to the detenu & the same having not been done in this case the detention was illegal. I do not find anything in the law under which the detention was ordered, which makes it obligatory on the detaining authority to supply the person ordered to be detained a copy of the order of detention. The purpose of the Act would be served if he is informed of the purport of the order. It is not contended that no such thing was done in this case. It is, no doubt, salutary that a copy of the order along with the grounds of detention should also be served on the detenu, particularly if one is demanded, but the mere fact that no copy was supplied does not make the arrest or detention illegal.