RALLA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 23 and 29 of 1952. Both the petitions related to Ralla Singh who was ordered to be arrested by the Deputy Commissioner on 26 -3 -1952 but was actually arrested on 31 -3 -1952. The first petition was made on 9 -4 -1952 and was admitted by me on 14 -4 -1952. The second petition was made on 28 -4 -1952. It appears that though the Deputy Commissioner made a formal order for Ralla Singh's arrest and he intended to detain him under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act, no grounds of detention were supplied to him. In the Deputy Commissioner's order of 26 -3 -1952 certain facts were mentioned and reference was made to the activities of Ralla Singh and others. A copy of the order was also supplied to Ralla Singh but there was nothing to show that the facts and activities to which it referred constituted grounds for Ralla Singh's detention nor was Ralla Singh informed that he had a right to make a representation. Evidently the Deputy Commissioner realised later that important provisions of law relating to the supply of grounds of detention to detained persons had not been complied with and accordingly he made a fresh order of detention on 16 -4 -1952 and then supplied grounds of detention to Ralla Singh. It was mentioned in the order of 16 -4 -1952 that the previous order of detention which was wrongly described as that of 31 -3 -1952 was revoked.

(2.) THE following are the grounds of detention:

(3.) The only points that the Petitioner's counsel urges regarding the grounds are that (1) they were not identical with the facts mentioned in the Deputy Commissioner's order of 26 -3 -1952, and (2) that ground No. 1 was vague. As I read the ground No. 1, I do not find anything vague in it. Counsel argues that instead of saying that the Petitioner supplied food etc. to Jang what is stated in the ground is that Jang's gang was supplied with food and since it is not known who the members of the gang were and whether Jang himself was in the gang or not the whole thing was indefinite and uncertain. The contention appears to be wholly devoid of force because the term "gang" is well -known and when we talk of a certain person's gang it is understood that it means the gang organised by that person and constituting that person and others. As regards the other point I concede that there is a difference between ground No. 1 and the facts stated in para 1 of the Deputy Commissioner's order of 26 -3 -1952, viz. that whereas it is stated in the order of 26 -3 -1952 that Jang's gang attempted to murder one Mohinder Singh, a Jat of village Todarpur & it was after this that they were supplied with food by the Petitioner and others, ground No. 1 is to the effect that food was supplied to the gang first and it was after this that the gang attempted to put Mohinder Singh to death. I cannot, however, understand how this difference vitiates the grounds of detention. The suggestion that the said difference indicates that the ground was false or concocted deserves no consideration. In addition it may be mentioned that the mere fact that the grounds on which the detaining authority made an order of detention were not true is not a matter for this Court to go into.