INDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE matters arise from action taken against one Rawel Singh son of Eakhshi Awtar Singh under the U. P. Goondas Act, 1932) as modified and extended to the State of Delhi by notification dated 10th No vember 1937 made under Section 7, Delhi Laws Act, 1912. On 21st march 1952 Rawel Singh was arrested, in pursuance of a warrant issued by the Home Secretary to the Chief Commissioner under Section 4 of this Act to which I shall refer hereafter as the Act. Rawel Singh was not produced before the Deputy Commissioner but was produced before the additional District Magistrate who refused to grant bail on the ground that he had no authority to do so. A bail application was presented to the Deputy Commissioner on the 22nd March 1952, consi deration of which, we are told, was adjourned, and only on 28th March after rules In the present matters had issued was he released on bail. It is claimed that the detention of Rawol singh after his arrest was illegal and also that all further proceedings under the Goondas Act are also illegal as the Act' is void, being in contravention of Articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution.

(2.) IT is necessary at this stage to describe the material provisions of the Act. Section 2 contains a definition of 'goonda' as including "a hooligan, bully, rogue or 'badmash'". Section 3 provides for a report by the District Magistrate to the Chief Commissioner if the District Magistrate considers that a person or a body of persons should be dealt with under the provisions of the Act. Clause (1) of Section 4 provides that on receipt of such report the Chief Commissioner may make an order for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the person against whom the report has been made. Clause (2) of the section provides that the warrant shall be in a form to be prescribed and shall contain a statement of the heads of the charges made against the person to be arrested, and the warrant shall also contain a requirement to the person arrested to make such submission as he may wish to the advising Judges appointed under Section 5, by such date as is stated in the warrant. Clause (3) - of Section 4 gives the Deputy Commissioner certain powers of a District magistrate for enforcing the attendance of the person against whom the warrant is issued, and provides that the warrant issued under the section shall be deemed to be a warrant issued by the district Magistrate for the arrest of such person to answer a charge in respect of a bailable offence committed by him. Section 5 (1) provides that after issue oft the warrant the Chief commissioner shall send the report of the District Magistrate with all material facts and circumstances in his possession relevant to the report to a body of two advising Judges, one of whom is to be the District and Sessions Judge of Delhi. Clause (2) of this section provides the procedure to be followed by this body of Judges and may be reported in full. " (2) The advising Judges shall consider in camera the report and the other facts and circumstances, if any, adduced before them by the Chief Commissioner, and any representation submitted to them by the person against whom the report has been made within the time fixed by section 4 or such further time as they may allow, and shall call for 'such further information, if any, and may examine such witnesses, if any, as shall appear to them to be necessary to enable them to tender their advice on the report. They shall also give to the person against whom the report has been made; if he so desires, an opportunity of appearing in person before them to offer his explanation and, may, at the instance of that person, require the attendance of any other person whose statement may support that explanation. The Judges shall have discretion to record any evidence in the absence of the person against whom the report has been made and in this case the substance of such evidence shall be communicated to him before he is given an opportunity of offering his explanation under this sub-section: provided that (a) nothing in this section shall be deemed to entitle the person whose case is before the advising judges to be represented before them by pleader, nor shall the Chief Commissioner be so entitled; (b) the advising Judges shall not disclose to the person in question any name the communication of which might endanger the safety of any individual; and (c) The advising Judges shall not be bound to observe the rules of evidence and shall not permit the putting of any question which may endanger the safety of any individual. " clause (3) of the section is not material. Clause (4) provides for a report by the advising Judges. Clause (5) provides that if the person whose case is under consideration claims that both he and his father were born in the State of Delhi or that he is a member of a family which has definitely settled in Delhi State and is himself so settled, the advising Judges shall give him an opportunity of establishing his claim and shall also give the District Magistrate an opportunity of rebutting it, and at the time of submitting their report shall record their opinion as to whether such person has established his claim. Section 6 (1) of the Act provides that on receipt of the report of the advising Judges the Chief Commissioner, if satisfied that the person against whom the report has been made should be removed elsewhere, may by an order reciting the conclusions of the advising Judges, as reported by those Judges, direct the person to leave the State of Delhi within such time by such route or routes, and for such period as may be stated in the order. The proviso to Section 6 (1) provides that if the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that the person and his father were born in the State of Delhi or that lie is a member of a family which has definitely settled in the State of Delhi and is himself so settled, the period of banishment shall not exceed five years. Clause (2) of the section provides for finality of the order of the Chief Commissioner. Section 8 provides for certain matters for identification of the person against whom an order under Section 6 has Been made. Sections 7, 9 and 10 make penal, and provide penalties for, breaches of orders made.

(3.) IT is clear from Clause (3) of Section 4 that warrant issued under that section js a bailable warrant. Rawel Singh was entitled to bail as soon as he was produced following his arrest, and his detention in custody until 28th March 1952 was illegal if, as. is averred, there was no consideration of his application for bail during this period. As, however, bail has been allowed, this matter does not call for a corrective order.