Judgment

DUA, J.-Sapmawia, son of Tivuala, has forwarded from the Dibrugarh Jail his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. According to the averments made in this petition he claims to be a loyal citizen of India hailing from Bairabi (Bairangal) village, Mizo District. On the 14th August, 1968, he was taken by the Security Forces from his house in Bairabi, Mizo District to work as a porter for carrying their luggage to the next village. The petitioner was, however, not allowed to return home. He was kept under military guard for about three months without any interrogation. On November 23, 1968, he was sent to Silchar District Jail where he was interrogated by a Sub-Inspector of Police. He was thus kept as an under-trial prisoner since his arrest. On enquiry from Jail authorities he learnt that he was charged with offences under Section 121, I. P. C. and under Rules 41 (5) and 32(5) of the Defence of India Rules and also under Sections 10. 11 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The petitioner was transferred from Silchar all to Nawgong Jail and from there to the District Jail, Dibrugarh. Later the charges under Section 121, I.P.C. and under Rules 41(5) and 32(5), Defence of India Rules were withdrawn leaving only charges under Sections 10, 11 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The petitioner on an earlier occasion applied to the Assam High Court far a writ of habeas corpus. That court on January 22. 1970, directed the State to complete investigation of the cases against him within two mouths. The petitioner complains that no further action has so far been taken in this connection.

2. Or. July 9, 1970, Shri B. R. Aggarwal, an Advocate of this Court appeared as amicus curiae in support of this petition. Rule nisi was issued returnable on July 16, 1970. The State was directed to produce in court all relevant previous records. An application, dated July 14. 1970, was filed in this Court by the State through Shri Naunit Lal, Advocate, seeking adjournment for two weeks for producing the petitioner and for filing the counter-affidavit. On July 16, 1970, however, though the petitioner was produced in this Court no return was hled on the plea that the relevant papers had not yet been received by the counsel. The case was accordingly adjourned to the following dav as prayed by the State counsel.

3. In the return, dated July 15, 1970, it is stated that die petitioner was produced at the kolasib Police Station on November 23, 1968 and a case under Sections 10, 11 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prc.vetVtion) Act was registered against him. During the investigation evidence for prosecution under Sections 10 and 13 of the said Act as well as under Section 11 of the Assam Maintenance of Public Order (Autonomous Districts; Act was also forthcoming. The exact words of the return on this aspect are:.

During investigation sufficient evidence for prosecution under Sections 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act as well as under Section 11 of the Assam Maintenance of Public Order (Autonomous Districts) Act were found against the accused. The accused-petitioner has been charge-sheeted on 20-3-70 under Section 11 of the Assam Maintenance of Public Order (Autonomous Districts) Act and the Commissioner for Cachar and Mizo Districts was requested to accord sanction for prosecution of the accused petitioner under Sections 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Sanction of the Commissioner was received on 12-5-70 and the relevant sections have been added to the charge-sheet. Production warrant has been issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Aijal, for appearance of the accused before the Aijal Court on 5-8-70 for triai.

On the habeas corpus petition filed by the accused petitioner, the Hon ble High Court, Gauhati, allowed two months time to complete investigation, vide order, dated 22-1-70. Investigation was completed within the time allowed by the Hon ble High Court and the accused petition