AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- Petitioner has challenged the detention order No. 17 dated 10-10-1994 passed by the respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Jammu, against his son-detenu Narinder Singh whereby detenu has been directed to be detained for two years under the Public Safety Act, on various grounds. The petitioner denied all the allegations levelled against the detenu in the grounds of detention and has submitted that the detenu was arrested on 13-7-1994 and after subjecting to intensive torture and interrogation at Joint Interrogation Centre, Jammu, was released on 26-8-1994. Thereafter the detenu remained earning his livelihood by carrying on a business of furniture work till 23-2-1995, while on that day he was re-arrested by the Police Station Satwari from his home and was shifted to Central Jail, Jammu on 24-2-1995. The detenu was served with two leaves; which were in English language and he was told that he has been detained under P.S.A. for a period of two years. He further alleged that the detenu was produced before the Advisory Board constituted under Public Safety Act of 1978, on 5-5-1995, after ten weeks and two days from the date of his detention. The detention is alleged to be illegal on the ground that the detenu has not been served with the grounds of detention and he has not been informed by the respondent No. 2 that he can make a representation against the order of the Government. The grounds of detention had not been read over and explained to the detenu in Urdu or Hindi language, which language the detenu only knows. The grounds of detention were read in English language which is not known to the detenu. The order of detention dated 10-10-1994 has been executed after a long delay on 23-3-1995. The petitioner from 26-8-1994 till 23-2-1995 did not leave his home and was carrying on his business in his home village. The detention order of the detenu has not been approved by the Government within statutory period, which is mandatory under Section 8 (4) of the Act. The material relied upon and mentioned in the grounds of detention, i.e., copies of FIR No. 82/1994 etc. have not been supplied to the detenu, which has seriously affected the right of the detenu of making an effective representation against the detention to the Government.

(2.) The respondent No. 2 has filed counter-affidavit stating therein that the detenu was involved in antinational activities prejudicial to the peace and security of the State, details whereof have been reflected in the dossier and the grounds of detention. The detenu was closely associated with unlawful organisations. The grounds of detention had been explained to the detenu in accordance with law and served upon the detenu against proper receipt. The detention order has been passed after application of mind by the detaining authority. All requisite documents were provided to the detenu against proper receipt.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.