KHACHERU RAM Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the production of the Petitioner and for his release from detention.

(2.) By an order, dated 23rd September, 1964, which appears to be on the usual cyclostyled form, the District Magistrate of Delhi directed the detention of the Petitioner in the Central Jail, Tehar, New Delhi, under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. In the order it was stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied from information received that it was necessary to detain the Petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In the petition as originally filed in January, 1965, all that was stated by the Petitioner was that he was being detained by the District Magistrate without any reasons having been given for his detention and that the usual procedure for the trial and punishment of offences had not been fallowed. This petition was admitted on 27th January, 1965 by Falshaw. C.J., and Mehar Singh, J. and the detenu was ordered to be produced on 8th February, 1965. The District Magistrate filed an affidavit, dated 6th February, 1965, saying that the Petitioner had figured in as many as 24 cases since 1946 and had been convicted in a number of them. In paragraph 2 of that affidavit, it was stated:

(3.) It was further stated that if the Petitioner remained at large, it would be hazardous to the community and his criminal activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order. On 8th February, 1965, Gurdev Singh, J., in view of the denial of the Petitioner that he had been prosecuted in 24 cases directed that the District Magistrate should supply' details of the cases in which he had been convicted indicating the result of any appeal or revision filed in those cases. The District Magistrate supplied the detail by an affidavit, dated 15th February, 1965 without complying with the order of this Court in the matter of stating the result of any appeal or revision preferred in those cases. On 16th February, 1965, the learned Judge made and there order asking for the necessary information. On 18th February, 1965, the District Magistrate gave the information about the result of the appeals and the revision petition filed in items Nos. 1, 5, 9, 10, 13 and 18 in his affidavit, dated 15th February, 1965. The Petitioner also filed another affidavit, dated 3rd March, 1965, saying that out of 23 cases, he was convicted only in five and in all the remaining cases he was either acquitted or discharged. The last order convicting him was passed in 1960 in a case in which he was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 12 of the Madras Habitual Offenders Act. It was further alleged in this affidavit that the order of the District Magistrate was mala fide and based on extraneous considerations and there was no connection between the Petitioner's previous conviction 1 and the object of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules. The reply of the District Magistrate contained in paragraph 7 of his affidavit, dated 4th March, 1965, was as follows: