PARMANAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus by one Parmanand challenging the detention of his son Hans Raj who was directed to be detained by the District Magistrate, Jammu, vide his order No. 10/PDA/70/1 -6 dated June 25, 1970.

(2.) APPEARING on behalf of the detenue Mr. Gupta urged that neither the order of detention nor the order declaring that it would be against public interest to disclose to the detenue the grounds on the basis of which the detention order was made, was communicated to his client. It was further submitted on behalf of the detenue that no opportunity to make a representation against the order of detention was furnished to him and that in the circumstances the detention could not be held to be legal. At the request of Mr. S. P. Gupta an opportunity to file an additional affidavit in support of his first submission was allowed to him. Accordingly he filed an affidavit of the detenue averting inter -alia that no warrant of arrest or detention was served on him, that he was detained in the Additional Police lock up Jammu by the police and forced to put his signatures at four places, that the contents of the documents on which his signatures were obtained were not read out and explained to him and even on his inquiry about the contents of the documents he was threatened and tortured.

(3.) THE learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has besides producing the original order Nos. 10/PDA/70/1 -6 and 10/PDA/1970/7 dated June 25, 1970 of the District Magistrate, Jammu, filed two counter affidavits -one of Shri Verender Kumar Sharma, Sub Inspector of Police, Station House officer, Police Station, Ramgarh, Tehsil Samba, who served the first order and of Shri Jagmohan Dhar, Inspector of Police CID, incharge, Additional Police Lock Up attached to police Station, Jammu who served the second order on the detenue. Both these officers have affirmed that they read out and explained the contents of the orders, the service of which was entrusted to them. These officers have also testified to the correctness of the endorsements made by them respectively on the reverse of the aforesaid two orders. They have further affirmed that in token of his having heard and understood the contents of the orders, the detenue put his signatures on the reverse of these orders without use of any force, coercion, or undue influence. In the circumstances, I find myself unable to accede to the submission of Mr. S. P. Gupta that neither the order of detention nor the order with -holding the grounds was read out to his client.