ABDUL RAHIM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by Abdul Rahim, son of Himmat Khan, Singh Muslim of village Bandasar, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India & Section 491, Criminal P. C., for the issue of a writ of 'habeas corpus', & is based on the following three principal grounds:

(2.) A copy of this petition was forwarded to the Govt. of Rajasthan for a reply, & it is stated that the petitioner also bore the name of Adring (Adrim), & being the son of Himta, Musalman of village Bandasar, Tahsil Sheo, was the same person for whose arrest & detention the order had been issued by the Govt. In support of this a reference has been made to the fact that the petitioner acknowledged the service of the order of detention on him under his signature as 'Adrim.' The grounds of detention had also been received by him under the same signature. Copies of the order & the grounds of detention have been filed along with the reply, & thereafter the learned Public Prosecutor has placed on the record the originals. It is further stated that the order if detention was in proper form & according to law, inasmuch as it has been expressed to have been made in the name of His Highness the Rajpramukh, & has been duly authenticated by the signature of the Home Secretary to the Govt. As regards the grounds of detention being vague, incomplete, & insufficient, it is stated that the petitioner had already submitted his representation, & that all the necessary particulars, which would enable him to do so, were contained in the grounds supplied to him, & accordingly he had not been deprived of an opportunity of making an effective representation.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, & have no hesitation in rejecting this petition. So far as the first ground relating to a mistake in the identity of the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel, after perusing the reply furnished by the Govt. of Rajasthan & the acknowledgments made by the petitioner under his signature as 'Adrim', deemed it fit not to press it. On the other question whether the order of detention was not in accordance with law, all that has been submitted is that it should have been expressly in the name of His Highness the Rajpramukh. There seems to be no doubt that according to Article 166 of the Constitution, the order should have been issued in the name of His Highness the Rajpramukh, but we consider that the defect in this case, if any. Is of a highly technical character, inasmuch as above the signature of the Home Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan it is explicitly mentioned that the order had been issued by His Highness the Rajpramukh. In other words it may be taken to have been made in the name of His Highness the Rajpramukh, & this has been authenticated by the signature of the Home Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan.