SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(SC) 70

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
10th November 1952
PATANJALI SASTRI C.J.I.; B.K. MUKHERJEA, S.R. DAS, VIVIAN BOSE AND GHULAM HASAN, JJ.
The State Of Punjab - Appellant
Versus
Ajaib Singh and another - Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1952.
Advocates appeared
Shri M. C. Setalvad,Attorney-General for India and C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Shri R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate, with them) instructed by Shri P. A. Mehta, Agent;-for the Appellant; Shri J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate, amicus curiae--for Respondent No.1.

Advocates:
J.B.DADACHAN, M.C.SETALVAD, O.K.DAPHTARY, P.A.Mehta, R.Ganapathy Iyer

Headnote:CONSTITUTION TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED - WHEN ARTICLE 22 IS ATTRACTED IN CASE OF ARREST - CIVIL COURT’S WARRANT OF ARREST OF JUDGMENT DEBTOR IN EXECUTION OF DECREE OF ARREST AND DETENTION OF ASSESSEE FOR FAILURE TO PAY INCOME TAX

       -held Articles 22 (1) and (2) will be attracted when two of Executive and not under warrant of arrest issued by court and (2) it is on accusation of criminal offence or of quasi criminal nature or on some prejudicial activity by arrested person.

       -see decision in State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, AIR 1953 SC.10. See also Collector of Malabar v. E. Ebrahim, AIR 1957 SC 688=1958 SCA 398.

       -held not arrest and detention within meaning of Article 22 and not covered by clauses (1) & (2).

       -see decision in State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, AIR 1953 SC 10 = 1952 SCA 791 = 1953 SCR 254 = 1952 S.J. 664; and Collector, Malabar v. E. Ebrahim, AIR 1957 SC 688=1958 SCA 398.

       

JUDGMENT

Das J.- This appeal arises out of a habeas corpus petition filed by one Ajaib Singh in the High Court of Punjab for the production and release of one Mt. Sardaran alias Mukhtair Kaur, a girl of about 12 years of age.

2. The material facts leading up to the filing of that petition may be shortly stated as follows. On the report made by one Major Babu Singh, Officer Commanding No. 2 Field Company, S. M. Faridkot in his letter dated 17-2-1951 that the petitioner Ajaib Singh had three abducted persons in his possession the recovery police of Ferozepore, on 22-6-1951, raided his house in village Shersingwalla and took the girl Mt. Sardaran into custody and delivered her to the custody of the Officer in charge of the Muslim Transit Camp at Ferozepore from where she was later transferred to and lodged in the Recovered Muslim Women s Camp in Jullundur City.

3. A Sub-Inspector of Police named Nihar Dutt Sharma, was deputed by the Superintendent of Police, Recovery, Jullundur, to make certain enquiries as to the facts of the case. The Sub Inspector as a result of his enquiry made a report on 5-10-1951 to the effect, inter alia that the girl had been abducted by the petitioner during the riots of 1947.

4. On 5-11-1951 the petitioner failed the habeas corpus petition and obtained an interim order that the girl should not be removed from Jullundur until the disposal of the petition The case of the girl was then enquired into by two Deputy Superintendents of Police, one from India and one from Pakistan who, after taking into consideration the report of the- Sub-Inspector and the statements made before them by the girl, her mother who appeared before them while the enquiry was in progress, and Babu alias Ghulam Rasul the brother of Wazir deceased who was said to be the father of the girl and other materials, came to the conclusion, inter alia that the girl was a Muslim abducted during the riots of l947 and was therefore, an abducted person as defined in S.2(1) (a), Abducted Persons (Recovery and Restoration) Act, 65 of 1949. By their report made on 17-11-1951, they recommended that she should be sent to Pakistan for, restoration to her next of kin but in view of the interim order of the High Court appended a note to the effect that she should not be sent to Pakistan till the final decision of the High Court.

5. The matter then came before a Tribunal said to have been constituted under S. 6 of the Act. That Tribunal consisted of two Superintendents of Police, one from India and the other from Pakistan. The Tribunal on the same day, i.e. 17-11-1951 gave its decision agreeing with the findings and recommendation of the two Deputy Superintendents of Police and directed that the girl should be sent to Pakistan and restored to her next of kin there.

6. The habeas corpus petition came up for hearing before Bhandari and Khosla JJ. on 26-11-1951, but in view of the several questions of far-reaching importance raised in this and other similar applications, the learned Judges referred the following questions to a Full Bench :

(1) Is Central Act No. 65 of 1949 ultra vires the Constitution because its provisions with regard to the detention in refugee camps of persons living in India violate the rights conferred upon Indian citizens under Art. 19 of the constitution?

(2) Is this Act ultra vires the Constitution because in terms it violates the provisions of Art. 22 of the Constitution?

(3) Is the Tribunal constituted under s. 6 of the Act a Tribunal subject to the general supervision of the High Court by virtue of Art. 227 of the Constitution?

At the same time the learned Judges made it clear that the Full Bench Would nor be oblige to confine itself within the narrow limits to the Phraseology of the said questions. On the next day the learned Judges made an order that the girl be released on bail on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Registrar in a sum of Rs. 5,000 with one surety, It is not clear from the record whether the security wa





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top