Chagla, C.J.

1. These three petitions presented under Section 491, Criminal P. C., challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner of Police on 26th February 1950 These three petitions are based on practically identical grounds and therefore it would be sufficient to deal with the facts in Petn. No. 250 of 1950.

2. Ghate, who is the petitioner in this petition, was detained by an order passed by the Commissioner of Police in 1948. He was detained at the Yeravda prison. Act IV [4] of 1950, which is a Central Act, came into force on 26th February 1950 and on that day the Com-missioner of Police passed the following order :

"Whereas the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, is satisfied with respect to the person known as S. V. Ghate of Greater Bombay that, with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State of Bombay and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make the following order :

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, directs that the said Section V. Ghate be detained."

It may be noticed in passing that Ghate is described as "of Greater Bombay. That may have been his correct address before he was detained in Yeravda jail. But ever since 1948--aud chat should have been patent to the Commissioner of Police--he was a resident of Poona, being detained in the Yeravda jail. The order is challenged on various grounds. But we will first deal with the ground which according to us must prevail and which appears to be fatal to the making of the order. The ground urged is that the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, had no jurisdiction to pass an order of detention with regard to Ghate who was not within his jurisdiction, but was residing in Poona. It is urged that the only authority that could have made such an order was either the Union Government or the State Government or the District Magistrate of Poona. In order to decide this point it is necessary to look at the scheme of the Central Act, IV [4] of 1950.

3. Section 3, which is the material section, confers power upon various authorities to make orders detaining certain persons, and Sub-clause (1) (a) provides that the Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied that; it is necessary to detain a person with a view to prevent him from acting in a prejudicial manner, make an order of detention. Sub-clause (1) (b) it is unnecessary to consider because it deals with the case of a person who is a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, and power is also given to the Central Government and the State Government to deal with foreigners who fall under that category. Then Sub-clause (2) provides that any District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or, in a presidency-town, the Commissioner of Police may, if satisfied as provided in Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), exercise the power conferred by the said sub-section. Therefore, the authorities mentioned in this sub-section are invested with the same power as has been conferred upon the Central Government and the State Government under Sub-section (1). The contention of the petitioner is that the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police may exercise the same power as the Union Government or the State Government can exercise under Sub-section (1), but there is a territorial limitation to their jurisdiction, and the power that they can exercise must be limited to the persons who reside within their jurisdiction. It would not be open to a District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to pass an order with regard to a person who was not resident within the district of which the District Magistrate was the District Magistrate or who was residing outside Greater Bombay with regard to the Commissioner of Police. On the other hand, it is contended by the Advocate-General that the jur