JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGJIT Singh petitioner has been detained under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereafter the Act) by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur vide order dated June 29, 1983 (P.I.). The petitioner has been supplied the grounds of detention (P.2). It has been stated therein that on May 31, 1983, at 11 P.M. the petitioner along with his associate Sarwan Singh (Petitioner in Cr.W.P. No. 423 of 1983) was found under suspicious circumstances by the police near Adda Gahlari. They were stopped on which the petitioner and his associate raised slogans "KHALISTAN ZINDABAD, DAL KHALSA ZINDABAD, PUNJAB SARKAR MURADABAD, KHALISTAN LE KAR RAHEYAN GE, KAR RAHE AN GE HINDU SAMRAJ MURADABAD". The petitioner and his associate were arrested. On search Posters containing objectionable material detailed in P.2 were recovered from them. A case under sections 124-A, 153-A, Indian Penal Code and 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was registered against them. It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the District Magistrate ordered the detention of the petitioner to prevent him from activities prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The petitioner who was in judicial custody in connection with the case registered against him under section 124-A, 153-A, Indian Penal Code and section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, was served with the detention order P.1 and was also supplied the grounds of his detention P.2. The petitioner has assailed the order P.1 in the present Criminal Writ.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been arrested under section 124-A, 153-A, Indian Penal Code and section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act during the night intervening May 31, and June 1, 1983. The petitioner was in judicial custody on June 29, 1983, when the impugned detention order was served on him. In view of the fact that the petitioner was in judicial custody he could not act prejudicially to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. In any case, the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner was in judicial custody and he could not act prejudicial to the security of State and maintenance of public order. The District Magistrate, therefore, passed the impugned order without proper application of mind. It is liable to be set aside on this ground. Reliance has been placed on Vijay Kumar v. State of J and K and others, AIR 1982 SC 1023. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail.

(3.) IT is evident that the District Magistrate did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner was in judicial custody when the impugned order was passed. There is no mention in the impugned order about the petitioner being in judicial custody. There is also no indication therein that the District Magistrate was aware that the petitioner was in judicial custody.