Back
1984 Supreme(Gau) 15
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
N. IBOTOMBI SINGH AND T. C. DAS, JJ.
THOKCHOM GOSAI SINGH
VERSUS
STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS
Civil Rule (HC) 271 of 1983,
Decided on : 24 -1 -1984.
Non-furnishing of the seizure list of the incriminatory articles recovered from the detenu at the time of arrest prejudiced the detenu in exercise of his right of making an effective representation, rendering the detention order void.
Headnote:
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 - SECTION 3(2) AND 3(3) - DETENTION ORDER - VALIDITY - SEIZURE LIST OF INCRIMINATORY ARTICLES NOT FURNISHED TO DETENU - PREJUDICE TO DETENU - DETENTION ORDER VOID.
Fact of the Case:
The detenu was arrested and detained under the National Security Act, 1980, on the grounds that he was an active member of the outlawed organization PLA, had made a PLA star fixed with a bomb, had unauthorized possession of a revolver and hand grenades, and was arrested with these items in his possession. The detenu challenged the validity of the detention order on the ground that the seizure list of the incriminatory articles recovered from him at the time of arrest was not furnished to him along with the grounds of detention.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the seizure list of the incriminatory articles was a basic fact that influenced the detaining authority in reaching the requisite subjective satisfaction, and non-furnishing of the copy of the same clearly prejudiced the detenu in exercise of his right of making an effective representation. The court further held that the seizure memo was relied upon by the detaining authority in reaching the subjective satisfaction and it must have been supplied to the detenu pari passu the grounds of detention. Since the same was not supplied, the order of detention is void.
Issues: Whether the non-furnishing of the seizure list of the incriminatory articles recovered from the detenu at the time of arrest prejudiced the detenu in exercise of his right of making an effective representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Mohd. Zakir v. Delhi Administration and Thakor Mulchandani v. Asst. Sec. to the Govt. of Maharashtra to hold that the seizure list of the incriminatory articles was a basic fact that influenced the detaining authority in reaching the requisite subjective satisfaction, and non-furnishing of the copy of the same clearly prejudiced the detenu in exercise of his right of making an effective representation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and held the detention order void, directing the detenu to be released forthwith.
N. Ibotombi Singh, J. :- By our short order passed on 23-1-84 we quashed the order of detention as void and ordered the release of the detenu forthwith stating that reasons would follow. We now set out reasons herein below :
2. This is an application under Art.226 of the Constitution challenging the order of detention dated 6th December, 1983 passed by the District Magistrate, (Imphal) Manipur under S.3(3) read with S.3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The District Magistrate (Imphal) Manipur passed the impugned order as he was satisfied that it was necessary to detain Mr. Thokchom Thoibam Singh alias Thoi alias Brojen Singh with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order. The detenu was already under confinement in the Manipur Central Jail, Imphal, being arrested in connection with FIR No.345(6)/83 IPS under Ss.121, 121A, IPC ; S.25(1)(a) of Arms Act and 13 UA(P) Act. He was served on 8-12-83 with the detention order along with the grounds of detention. The detenu made a representation to the Government of Manipur on 11-12-83. Meanwhile, the present petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on 21-12-83 on behalf of the detenu by his father Thokchom Gosai Singh challenging the validity of the order of detention. Rule nisi was issued on 22-12-83. It appears that his representation was also rejected by the Government on 22-12-83. While the writ petition was pending there was a sitting of the Advisory Board constituted under S.9 of the Act and the Advisory Board on reference to it of the case of the petitioner made its report on 10-1-84 that in its opinion there was good and sufficient cause for his detention. The State Government approved the detention order and acting on the report of the Advisory Board passed order for detention for a period of 12 months from the date of detention.
3. The respondents herein, the State of Manipur, the District Magistrate, Imphal, Government of Manipur and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Imphal filed return showing justification of the detention order. The affidavit-in-opposition was sworn on behalf of the respondents by Shri S. Sarat Singh, District Magistrate (Imphal), Manipur who passed the impugned order of detention. The grounds of detention are reproduced below :
"1.(a) That you are an active member of the outlawed organisation known as Peoples Liberation Army (PLA for short) after you joined the said organisation in 1981 through I. Indramani Singh and contacted H. Yaima Singh alias Chaoba Singh of Bishenpur, Hard-core members of the organisation.
(b) That you along with your associates namely H. Yaima Singh alias Chaoba Singh, L. Ibomcha Singh and H. Nillo Singh made a PLA star fixed with a bomb and planted just near the platform for Flag hoisting at Bishenpur Bazar in the night of 25-1-83.
(c) That you were having unauthorised possession of a revolver with 9 rounds of 38 ammn. and 12 rounds of 9 mm and two hand grenades which were received by you from the said H. Yaima Singh alias Chaoba in the month of June, 1983.
(d) That on 16-6-83 you were arrested by the Police from your house and the said 38 revolver with two live hand grenades, six live rounds of 38 ammn., 4 live rounds of 9 mm were also recovered from your possession.
Extract copies of your own statement and that of L. Balla alias Dolendra Singh, H. Nillo Singh and H. Yaima Singh alias Chaoba Singh of Bishenpur along with copies of FIR No.6(1)/83 B.P.S. and 345(6)/83 IPS which form the basis of the grounds for your detention are enclosed."
4. The learned counsel for the detenu has assailed the detention order on a number of grounds; but we propose to deal with one contention only which, in our opinion, would go to the root of the matter and which, when accepted, in our opinion, would result in the invalidation of the order. The point raised is that the seizure list of the incriminatory articles said to be recovered from the possession o
