Judgement

SARKARIA, J. :- The petitioner challenges the validity of the order, of his detention passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu under Section 3 (1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (for short the Act ).

2. The petitioner is a resident of Pindi Charkan Kalan P. S. Bishna, District Jammu. He was arrested on April, 9, 1973 in connection with a case registered at that Police Station under Ss. 3 and 6 of the Indian Passport Act, Section 2 read with Section 3 of the Egress and Ingress Movement Control Order, Section 4 read with S. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. He was produced before the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Bishna on April 10, 1973 and remanded to police custody for 10 days. He was kept in Police Station, Bishna up to April 14, 1973 and thereafter transferred to the Additional Police Lock Up, Sadar, Jammu for interrogation. On April 20, 1973, the Chief Judicial Magistrate remanded him to police custody for a further period of five days. After interrogation, he was let off by the police on April 24, 1973 under S. 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for want of sufficient evidence.

3. According to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, the petitioner was, about 5 days after his release, arrested from his village Pindi Charkan Kalan by the Station House Officer, Bishna on April 29, 1973 in execution of the impugned order of detention that had been passed against him by the District Magistrate on April 27, 1973. He was committed to Central Jail, Jammu on April 30, 1973.

4. The order of detention stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner "from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State it is necessary so do".

5. The particulars of the grounds of detention which according to the respondents, were served on the detenu, were :

"Shri Vakil Singh cited above is a Pak Agent, who worked for Pak FIU. He supplied Indian Army information to Pak FIU Officers through Mian Reham of Jumbian a notorious Pak agent and courier. He also paid various visits to Pudwal, Maharajke and Sialkot for supplying of Indian Army Intelligence to Pak FIU Officer. In lieu of the same he had been receiving money from Pak FIU."

6. Mr. Mukhoty, learned Counsel appearing as amicus curiae for the petitioner has sought to make out these points : (1) The detaining authority has been extremely causal in its approach and the impugned order was passed without application of mind; (2) Neither the grounds of detention nor the order of the State Government confirming the detention were communicated and explained to the detenu; (3) The grounds of detention are vague and, in consequence, the detenu was deprived of the opportunity of making a proper representation, (4) Assuming that the order of detention was served on the detenu, it was served when the latter was already in jail. In such a situation, it could not be predicated that the order had been passed with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The order of detention therefore is an act of colourable exercise of jurisdiction.

7. In amplification of the first and the fourth points, Mr. Mukhoty has invited our attention to the copy of the communication, dated April 27, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the communication ) whereby the grounds specified in the Annexure thereto were sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail for service upon the detenu. Stress has been placed on the words "has been detained" and "has been ordered" in the body of this communication and on the endorsement thereunder to the effect :

"Copy to (1) The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jammu in duplicate for informing the detenu accordingly."

8. It is argued that the words "has been detained" occurring in the opening paragraph of this communication and "informing the detenu" in the endorsement to the Superintendent, Central jail indicate that the petit