MOHD HAFEEZ Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 2-6-1984 while setting aside the order of detention of the detenu, I could not give reasons for the said order due to paucity of time. Now, I proceed to give the reasons in support of my said order :

(2.) The detenu Mohammad Hafeez son of Sher Mohammad r/o Dharana Police Station Mendhar was detained on 13-10-1983 by District Magistrate, Jammu, u/s.8 of the J. and K. Public Safety Act of 1978. The grounds of detention supplied to the detenu contained in Annexure A to the petition are enumerated as under:-

(3.) Regarding ground No.1 it is said by the detaining authority that in the last week of March the detenu had persuaded and motivated one Babu Lal working in ammunition point Mandhar to procure documents containing secret information regarding the arms and ammunition and had promised him handsome reward in lieu thereof. It is also alleged that the detenu introduced Shri Babu Lal to one Fakkar Mate, a Pak agent and himself agreed to be a courier between said Babu Lal and Fakkar Mate. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this ground of detention was vague and the detenu was prevented to make effective representation against his detention. The vagueness according to the learned counsel, is because of absence of date in the last week of March 1981. It should have been pointed out by the detaining authority specifically as to on what date the detenu had persuaded and motivated Babu Lal and on what date he had acted as a courier between Babu Lal and Fakkar Mate, a Pak agent. It is further contended that under Art 22(5) of the Constitution as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it is the fundamental right of the detenu to get an opportunity for making a representation against the detention order. The representation which the detenu chooses to make must be effective and in order to make an effective representation he must be given full details about the date and of the incidents so that he is able to exercise his right properly. On the basis of vague ground, it is contended that the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation.