The Court held that the grounds of detention were not vague, that the detaining authority had applied its mind to the matter, and that the possibility of criminal prosecution was not an absolute bar to an order of preventive detention.

Hansaria, J.:- Every detention without a trial almost puts the Court itself on trial when it is approached for redress. On the one hand it has to guard the cherished liberty of the individual, and on the other it has to see to the smooth functioning of the social order. When anything puts in jeopardy the security of the State, the Court has to approach the matter with still greater care and circumspection.

2. The present is a case where the petitioner was detained to prevent him from engaging in activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State. The impugned order was passed on 21-7-1982 and it came to be served on the same day along with the grounds leading to the above subjective satisfaction. We may set out the grounds. These read :-

"(1) That you are the leading supporter of the unlawful MNF Organisation in Theiriat Village and have been actively harbouring and providing shelter to outlawed MNF elements for the furtherance of the organisation which has been aiming at and working for the secession of Mizoram from India.

(2) That your such activities have been disturbing public order and endangering the security of the State of Mizoram will be evident from the facts and particulars given below and it is necessary to prevent you from acting in such manner :-

(a) That on 11-6-1982 you helped two MNF hostiles of SS Lt. Thanzuala group in collecting of taxes in Theiriat Village.

(b) That in between 1-4-1982 to 15-5-1982, SS Sgt. Khumtira along with one unidentified MNF frequently visited your house and sometimes spent the night in your house with your knowledge, consent and assistance.

(c) That on 24-3-1982 night, you provided shelter and meal to SS.2/Lt. Biakzawna of the unlawful MNF organisation.

(d) That you provided, shelter to SS Lt. Nowawia and 2 other MNF hostiles on 16-3-1982."

2. Before adverting to the points urged by Shri Tanti relating to the grounds, we may refer to some other points urged in the petition. Though it has been stated that the order was not served on the petitioner within the statutory period provided by the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter the Act, the same does not seem to be correct inasmuch as the order was not passed on 12-7-1982 as is the averment in the petition, but on 21-7-1982. The order dated 12-7-1982 referred in para 2 of the petition is not an order of detention but is an order conferring power on the District Magistrate to exercise powers under the Act. The grievance about non-disposal of representation is also unfounded as from the return on behalf of the Union Territory, it appears that the representation reached the Home Department on 11-8-1982, and it was disposed of on 17-8-82. So also there is no substance in the allegation that the matter was not reported to the Government of India inasmuch as it was so done, as per the aforesaid return, on 31-7-1982 after the order of the District Magistrate was approved by the Government on 26-7-1982, which is also within the statutory period. Similarly, there is no illegality as to the disposal of the matter by the Advisory Board because the confirming order of the Board is of 6-9-1982 and as such within a period of 7 weeks from the date of detention.

3. We may now come to the submissions relating to the ground. The first point urged is that what has been stated under ground No.1 is absolutely vague inasmuch as no details of the alleged activities of the petitioner in actively harbouring and providing shelter to out lawed MNF elements have been given. That this para is bereft of details is apparent. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Mizoram, however, is that this para is in the nature of a preamble or introduction. Reliance is placed on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dhananjoy Das v. District Magistrate, AIR 1982 SC 1315 : (1982 Cri LJ 1779). This decision has clearly held that there can be a preamble or introductory para in the grounds of detention. Of course, whether it is so has to be determine