KISHORIMAL Vs. CROWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE nine habeas corpus applications Under Section 491, Criminal P. C. are by the nine detenus who have been detained in the Ajmer Central Jail under the provisions of the Punjab Public Safety Act, 1917, which was applied to this Province by Government of India Notification No- 8/6/48-Jndioial I dated 1st May 198. All the nine applications were heard together as the arguments advanced were based on a common ground, and so all the applications are now being dealt with by this order.

(2.) IT is common ground that detenus Ismail, Bhanwerlal and Hiralal were arrested on 28th June 1948 by the police acting under S 151, Cri-minal P. C. , on certain information received by them about the alleged activities of these three persona. On the same day, i. e. 28th June 1948, it is also common ground that the detenus named Kesrimal, Misnlal, Daulat Rom, Kan-hayalal and Magni Bam were arrested by the police Under Section 161 Criminal P. C. The detenu Puran was arrested on 3rd July 1948 also Under Section 151, Criminal P. C. After their arrest all the above detenus were sent to the Ajmer Central Jail for being detained there and the arresta were reported to the local authorities. On 29th June 1948 the District Magistrate, Ajmer. Merwara, passed a formal order Under Section 8 (1), Punjab Public Safety Act, stating that the detention of the detenus Ismail, Bhanwerlal, Hiralal, Kesri, mal, Doulatram,'kanhiyalal and Mangiram, already arrested Under Section151, Criminal P. C. and placnd in custody, "may be deemed to be arrested under Section 3 (1), Punjab Publicf Safety Act 1947," as made applicable to this province. A similar order was passed by the Distriot Magistrate Ajmer Merwara in respect of the detenu Puran on 6th July 1948.

(3.) THE first point taken up before me on fcehalf of these nine detenus in these applications is that as the initial order of arrest was not passed under the provisions of Section 3 (1), Punjab Public Safety Act, 1947, therefore their detention is wrong and illegal, and so the detenus should be set at liberty. But I think there is no substance in this argument for though it is true that the original arrest of the detenus was not under the provisions of the Punjab Public Safety Act. 1947, it. is clear that by the District Magistrate's order dated 29th June 1948, and 6th July 1918, the detention of these detenus with effect from the above two datea was) Under Section 3 (1), Punjab Public Safety Act. Since the detenus were already in custody there was no need to physioally re-arrest them under the provisions of the Puniab Public Safety Act and place them under custody again. At the most it can be said if the authorities had decided to act in a techniaal manner, they would at the most have for-mally released the nine detenus and re-arrested them on the authority of an order from the Dis. tirot Magistrate, Ajmer Merwara, under the Punjab Public Safety Act, and then placed them in the custody of the Central Jail. But in these habeas corpus applications I am not concerned with the original order of detention, but with the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate on 2uth June 1948, and 6th July 1948, for it is these orders the legality of which is relevant for the pure at the present applications. In support of this view, reference may here be made to the case of Mooichand and Ors v. Emperor A. I. R. (35) 1918 ALL. 281 : 49 Cr. L. J. 352 wherein a similar point arose and was decided by the Allahabad High Court, Following that deviation I am of the view that there is no substance in the contention that if the initial detention is wrong and unauthorized it follows that the subsequent detention, though regularized and brought within the purview of the provisions of the Punjab Public Safety Act, must also be held to be wrong and illegal.