HAR TIRATH SINGH Vs. CROWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS was a rule directed against an order of detention of Har Tirath Singh who had been detained under the provisions of East Punjab Public Safety Act of 1949.

(2.) ON 8th June 1949, the petitioner Har Tirath Singh was arrested under an order dated 80th May 1949 passed by the Superintendent of Police Mr. N. B. Sahney. On 10th June 1949, the Superintendent of Polios passed an order in which he stated that the petitioner had been arrested under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act under his directions and that he had directed that Har Tirath Singh be committed to sub-jail, Hoshiarpur, until 7tb July 1949 and should be classified as "b class" detenu and on the same day he made a report to the Government. On and July 1949, the Provincial Government made an order whereby it directed the detention of the petitioner in the custody of the Inspector General of Prisons, East Punjab till further orders. This order is signed by the Home Secretary to the East Punjab Government, Mr. M. B. Bhide. On 16th June 1949, under the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act grounds on which the order of detention had been made were served on the petitioner. They were in the following words: "you have taken part in subversive activities and committed breachof the pewee tranquility,"

(3.) ON 22nd August 1949, the petitioner Hat Tirath Singh made an application to the court Under Section 491, Criminal P. C. , for this issue of a writ of habeas corpus, The matter was placed before me and I directed on 14th October 1949 that the betenu should be produced before me, but he could not be produced because, so I was informed, he was on hunger-strike and was unable to travel. The Superintendent of Jail Mr. Madan Mohan Mehta sent this information to this Court by means of a letter, bat I did not think that to be sufficient and I called upon him to give that information by affidavit which was done. In my order, dated 30th October 1949, I had said that the proper procedure )6 bring facts of this kind to the notice of the Court showing as to why a particular order of a Court had not been carried out has to be dose by means of an affidavit of the person who was showing cause and the affidavit, as I have said, was filed in this case.