SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.
Vijay Kumar, Petitioner
Versus
State of J. and K. and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. (Criminal) No. 9616 of 1881.
Decided on 17-3-1982.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Bhim Singh, P.D. Sharma and Subash Sharma, Advocates, for Petitoner.
Mr. M. N. Phadke, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Advocate, with him, for Respondents.
Public Safety Act, 1978 - Article 22 - Article 22 (5) - Section 8 - Section 13 (1) - Detention orderb – Writ petition - whether detaining authority was aware of fact that detenu on being suspected of having committed a serious offence was already in jail for a period of more than a fortnight before date of impugned detention order - Preventive detention is resorted to the thwart future action - If detenu is already in jail charged with a serious offence he is thereby prevented from acting in a manner prejudicial to security of the State - Maybe in a given case there yet may be need to order preventive detention of a person already in jail - But in such a situation detaining authority must disclose awareness of fact that person against whom an order of preventive detention is being made is to knowledge of authority already in jail and yet for compelling reasons a preventive detention order needs to be made - Thereupon moved an application for releasing him on bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge - who – Court are informed was competent to try accused charged with an offence under Enemy Agents Ordinance - His petition for bail came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge when the following order was made -This application pertains to Vijay Kumar accused who is involved for an offence under the Enemy Agents Ordinance which is being investigated by Counter Intelligence Police - learned Chief Prosecuting Officer and the learned counsel for the accused have been heard - During course of arguments an order has been shown to me by the police that said Vijay Kumar accused has now been ordered to be detained under Public Safety Act - In charge Superintendent Central Jail has stated in his affidavit that representation was forwarded to Govemment at Srinagar vide Office letter and simultaneously a wireless message on same day was also sent to Government intimating that representation of had been forwarded to Government for appropriate action - Deputy Secretary to Government of Home Departmentin his affidavit has stated that representation off was received from Superintendent Central Jail in office of Home Department at Srinagar - Held, Concerned office was aware of fact that a representation has already been made and a duplicate was sent for - With background of this knowledge trace movement of representation from of its admitted receipt being - If representation was received and same office disposed it of there has been a time lag of days and explanation in that behalf in affidavit of is far from convincing - In our opinion in facts of this case this delay apart from being inordinate is not explained on any convincing grounds - Court held that one of basic requirements of Cl. (5) of Art. 22 is that authority making order of detention must afford earliest opportunity of making a representation against order of detention and this requirement would become illusory unless there is a corresponding obligation on the detaining authority to consider representation of as early as possible - Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
DESAI, J. :— On Feb. 9, 1982 we made an order quashing the detention order dated July 11. 1981 made by the District Magistrate, Jammu in exercise of the power conferred by See. 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (Act for short) and we announced that the reasons would follow. Here are the reasons.
2. The detenu Vijay Kumar was arrested on June 26, 1981. A petition was moved on his behalf, before the Chief Judicial, Magistrate, Jammu praying for releasing the detenu on. bail. This petition for bail-appears to have come up before the learned Magistrate on July 4, 1981 when the following order was made :
"I have heard the advocate for the applicant and perused the C. D. File. Put up for orders on 6-7-81."
2A. When the matter again came up on July 6, 1981, the learned Magistrate made the following order :
"Although there was nothing in the C. D. File about his (Petitioner) involvement in E. A. O. (Enemy Agents Ordinance). on 4-7-81, but today a detailed report has been presented in which one of the offences of which he is charged is u/s 3, E. A. O. which this court is not competent to try. Hence this application is returned to the applicant for presentation to the proper court along with report."
3. The detenu thereupon moved an application for releasing him on bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Jammu, who, we are informed, was competent to try the accused charged with an offence under Enemy Agents Ordinance. His petition for bail came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on July 11, 1981 when the following order was made:
"This application pertains to Vijay Kumar accused who is involved for an offence under the Enemy Agents Ordinance which is being investigated by the Counter Intelligence Police, Jammu. The learned Chief Prosecuting Officer and the learned counsel for the accused have been heard.
During the course of arguments an order has been shown to me by the police that said Vijay Kumar accused has now been ordered to be detained under the Public Safety Act.
In view of this order, this bail application has become infructuous which is disposed of accordingly."
4. The detenu was served, with the detention order dated July 11, 1981 on the same day in jail because he was already in jail from June 25, 1981. The grounds for detention were served on him on July 15, 1981. The detenu submitted his representation dated July 29, 1981, addressed to the Secretary to the Government. Home Department, to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jammu where the detenu was detained. One Shri K. D. Sharma, In charge Superintendent, Central Jail, Jammu has stated in his affidavit dated Feb. 6, 1982 that the representation of the detenu dated July 29, 1981 was forwarded to the Govemment at Srinagar vide Office letter No. 2595 dated July. 29, 1981 and simultaneously a wireless message No. 2596 on the same day was also sent to the Government intimating that the representation of the detenu had been forwarded to the Government for appropriate action. Mr. K. S. Salathia, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Home Department, Jammu, in his affidavit dated Feb. 9, 1982 has stated that the representation off the detenu was received from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jammu in the office of the Home Department at Srinagar on Aug. 12, 1981. The department also received the comments of S. P., C. I. D. Counter Intelligence, Jammu and thereafter the case was processed on Aug. 24, 1981 in the office of the Home Department at Srinagar and the file was placed before the Home Secretary on Aug. 25, 1981, who recommended the same for approval on Aug. 28, 1981 to the Chief Minister (Home). From the same affidavit, it further transpires that the Chief Minister rejected the representation on Aug. 31, 1981 and the same was communicated to the detenu on Sept. 1, 1981. In the meantime, the case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board on Aug. 3, 1981. The Advisory Board submitted its report to the Governm
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.