The interpretation of Section 13(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and the conditions under which a fresh order of detention can be issued after the expiry or revocation of a previous order.

Sinha, J.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 491, Cr. P. C.

2. An order for the detention of the petitioner, Karamvir Singh, under the Preventive Detention Act (Act 4 of 1950), was passed on 20-9-1952, and he was arrested on 22nd September. The grounds of detention were served upon him on 26-9-1952. He had made an application to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Sec. 491, Cr P. C. (Criminal Misc. No. 403 of 1952). It appears that he had also filed an application for habeas corpus from jail (Criminal Misc. No. 351 of 1952). Both these applications were heard by this Court on 2-12-1952, and the judgment was delivered on 19-12-1952. This Court held that, in view of the amendment of the Act (Act 4 of 1951), the reference by the State Government to the Advisory Board was bad because at the time the reference was made the Chairman of the Advisory Board had not been appointed and therefore the Advisory Board had not been properly constituted. Accordingly, the detenu was ordered to be released from preventive detention. A fresh order of detention was, however, passed on 20-12-1952, and was served upon the petitioner on 23-12-1952.

3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that, in spite of the order of release by this Court holding that the detention of the petitioner was illegal, this petitioner was not released. The Jailor of the Central Jail, Hazaribagh, where the petitioner was detained and is under detention, has filed an affidavit in this Court. According to the affidavit, the order of this Court releasing the petitioner from detention was received by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hazaribagh, on 22-12-1952, and the detenu was released forthwith. But, as two intermediate custody warrants dated 2 and 16-12-1952, had been issued from, the Court of Sri C. N. Tewari, Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh, in respect of two pending cases under Sec.186, Penal Code, and as no bail had been granted, the petitioner was not actually released from custody on 22-12-1952, in spite of his release from detention. It is further stated in the affidavit that a fresh order of detention dated 20-12-1952 (No. A/D-1-1402/ 52 SS-C. D. 2) issued by the Governor of Bihar was served on the petitioner at 10-30 A.M. on 23-12-1952, and since then he is detained in pursuance of that order.

It is also stated that on 23-12-1952, at 5-55 P.M. orders releasing the petitioner from jail custody as under-trial prisoner in the two cases mentioned above were received by the Jail Superintendent, Hazaribagh, but as the detention order, referred to above, had already been served on the petitioner, he was not re leased from jail custody.

4. Mr. Ghosh, on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that, under the amended Sec.13(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, the detention of the petitioner is illegal because no fresh facts could have arisen, after the previous order of detention was held illegal by this Court, as the man was never released and was throughout in jail. The amended Sec.13 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 runs as follows :

"(1) "Without prejudice to the provisions of Sec.21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. (10 of 1897), a detention order may at any time be revoked or modified - (a) notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Sec.3, by the State Government to which that officer is subordinate or by the Central Government;

(b) notwithstanding that the order has been made by a State Government, by the Central Government.

(2) The revocation, or expiry of a detention order shall not bar the making of a fresh detention order under Sec.3 against the same person in any case where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry on which the Central Government or a State Government or an officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that such an order should be made."

5. The questions which fall to be considered un