PRAKASH CHAND ALIAS PUNJABI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have declared the detention of the detenue as illegal and unconstitutional and he was ordered to be set at liberty by me vide my order dated 2 -6 -1984. I now proceed to give reasons in support of my said order. The detenue has been detained by an order of detention passed by District Magistrate, Jammu, on 30 -11 -1983 u/s 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act because in the opinion of the Detaining Authority his activities were prejudicial to the security of the State and it was necessary to detain him under the said Act. The grounds of detention contained in Annexure -B to the petition reveal that the detaining authority has justified his detention on six grounds which are for the sake of facility reproduced hereunder : -

(2.) Regarding ground No. 1 the detenue is alleged to have indulged in the activities contained therein. Same is true about the other grounds also. Month and year is given but not the date. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the grounds were vague inasmuch as the detenue was not told about the exact date when he had indulged in the activities attributed to him. He also brought to my notice that the District Magistrate has not replied the contents of the petition and merely states in his affidavit that he was satisfied that with a view to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it was necessary to detain him and he had communicated the ordered to Suptd. of Police C.I.D. Jammu for execution. The petitioner was arrested on 1 -12 -1983 and was asked to submit his representation against his order of detention. The contention raised in the petition is not replied by the detaining authority, therefore, the contents of the petition should be presumed to be true.

(3.) It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was arrested by the organisation known as Counter Espoinage of the Intelligence Department of the J&K. Govt. in the month of August 1983. He was kept in custody without any warrant of arrest. It is further alleged that after fiftean days of his arrest he was detained in Judicial lock -up for sixty days for an offence under the Enemy Agents ordinance, 2005. Thereafter he was released by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu at the request of the prosecution u/s 169 Cr. P. C. Code because the prosecution contended before him that no offence has been committed by the detenue, therefore, he be released but even after the court order he was not released but was kept in detention and the order of detention was served on him on 3 -12 -1983, which is impugned in this petition. These contentions of the petitioner have not been at all denied by the detaining Authority in his reply affidavit. Therefore, I have no reason to disbelieve the petitioner in so far as these facts are concerned.