KESHAV GOKHALE Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are unanimous in our opinions on the various questions which have been raised, and the judgment I am about to deliver is the judgment of this full bench. We have before us two petitions under Section 491, Criminal P.C., 1898, of Mr. Keshav Govind Gokhale, who has been brought up from Belgaum Central Prison where he is under detention. From these petitions which are duly affirmed it appears that Mr. Gokhale is a pleader practising in the Courts of the District of Belgaum and is also a Member of the Bombay Legislative Assembly. The following further facts, some of which appear in Mr. Gokhale's petitions, are not in dispute: (1) That the arrest was made under Rule 129, Defence of India Rules, by a Sub- Inspector of Police at Nippani which is 44 miles from Belgaum at 3 o clock in the afternoon of 9 August 1942. (2) That Mr. Gokhale was on the day following conveyed to Belgaum Central Prison, where he was detained until the middle of March 1943, being then transferred to Nasik Road Central Prison, and subsequently re-transferred to Belgaum Central Prison, from whence he has been produced before us pursuant to an order of this Court. (3) That the document, by virtue of which Mr. Gokhale is detained, was signed by Mr. C.N. Millard, District Magistrate of Belgaum, on 9 August 1942, in point of time before the actual arrest. (4) That on the same day as Mr. Gokhale was arrested Mr. Millard issued a document or documents which led to the detention of about thirty other persons. (5) That as a result of reading an account in the newspapers of a decision of the Federal Court, Mr. Gokhale applied on 2 September, 1948, to the District Magistrate at Belgaum for a copy of the order under which he was detained. That he was not supplied with any copy until 7 November 1943.

(2.) Before parting with the facts, we desire to state that every person under detention has a right to know the terms of the order under which he is detained, and that the delay in complying with Mr. Gokhale's request remains unexplained and is regrettable.

(3.) By Rub-rule (1) of Rule 129, Defence of India Rules, 1939, any police-officer, or any other officer of Government empowered in that behalf by general or special order of the Central Government, or of the Provincial Government, may arrest without warrant any person whom he reasonably suspects of having acted, of acting, or of being about to act: in amongst other ways "with intent to assist any State at war with His Majesty, or in a manner prejudical to the public safety or to the efficient prosecution of war." By Sub-rule (2) of Rule 129 it is provided that the officer who makes an arrest under Sub-rule (1) shall forthwith report the fact of such arrest to the Provincial Government and may commit the person so arrested to custody: Provided that no person shall be detained in custody under this sub-rule for a period exceeding fifteen days without the order of the Provincial Government; and that no person shall be detained in custody under this sub-rule for a period exceeding two months.