BAWLA KHAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this Habeas Corpus Petition, has challenged the legality of the order dated October 2, 1992 (Annexure. 1) passed by the District Magistrate, Barmer, under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act'), by which the learned District Magistrate, Barmer, after being satisfied that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the security of the 'State' ordered for his detention in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The petitioner has, also, challenged the order of confirmation Annexure. 8 dated 17.11.92, passed by the Government of Rajasthan, confirming the order of detention Annexure. 1 passed by the Detaining Authority, i.e., the District Magistrate, Barmer.

(2.) THE facts which necessitated the District Magistrate, Barmer, to pass the order Annexure. 1 on 2.10.92, are that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the security of the State. As per the confidential reports received from the Military Intelligence Bureau, Barmer, the petitioner was found engaged in espionage. He was, also, found engaged in smuggling activities as per the Military Intelligence reports and the B.S.F Intelligence reports. The History -sheet of the petitioner maintained at the Police Station, Gadra Road, showed his involvement in collecting secret/confidential strategical informations from India and transmitting the same to Secret Agencies of Pakistan, the F.U.I., being an active agent of Pakistan's Secret Agencies. The History -sheet of the petitioner maintained at Police Station, Gadra Road, also, discloses the involvement of the petitioner -detenu in the espionage and smuggling activities.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order on four grounds, namely, (i) that the grounds of detention are vague and insufficient and the necessary details of the charges, on which the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was based, was not supplied to the petitioner, which has deprived the petitioner from making an effective representation; (ii) proper opportunity to represent his case before the Advisory Board was not given to the petitioner as he was informed regarding the meeting of the Advisory Board only a day before; (iii) the representation filed by the petitioner was to considered by the Detaining Authority, who was bound to consider the same and the non -consideration of the representation by the Detaining Authority has resulted in the failure of justice, which invalidates the detention of the petitioner (D) and (iv) dhand there was long and nominate delay in sending due registration for consideration to the Central Government, which delayed the consideration of the petitioner's representation by the Central Government.