HARISH CHANDRA, J.

( 1 ) IN these criminal Miscellaneous cases the point that arises is whether an order of detention passed under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV [4] of 1950) which does not specify the periods of detention is valid. In the case of M. M. Bashir v. State, 1950 A. L. J. 518: (A. I. R. (38) 1951 ALL. 357) a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that such an order was not legally valid. He has based his finding on the analogy of the sections of the Penal code which prescribe punishments for various offences. It is pointed out that although in all these sections only the maximum periods of imprisonment to which the offender may be sentenced are specified, still Courts while convicting offenders under these sections pass sentences of imprisonment upon them for definite terms. In these sections the words generally used are to the effect that the offender "shall be punished with imprisonment. . . . which may extend to. . . . " These words, in my view, indicate that the sentence of imprisonment must be for a definite term which in no case is to exceed the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for that particular offence. There are provisions in the Penal Code as well as the Code of Criminal procedure (e. g. Section 73, Penal Code and Sub-section (2) of Section 367, Criminal P. C.)which cleanly indicate that the imprisonment to which offenders may be sentenced under the penal Code must be for a specific term. But the position under Section 3, Preventive Detention act, 1950, seems to be entirely different and it does not seem necessary under that section that the order of detention should specify the period during which the detenu would be kept under detention. An examination of the scheme of the Act would also indicate that this is so. Section 3 gives power to the Central Government or the State Government in certain circumstances to

"make an order directing that Such person be detained. " The same power is also given to the district Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as also to the Commissioner of Police in a presidency town under certain conditions. Under Section 7, when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order is required to communicate to him, as soon as may be, the grounds on which the order has been made and to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Under Section 9, in every case where a detention order has been made under Section 3, the Government is required within six weeks from the date of detention to place before an Advisory Board the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any made by the person affected by the order. According to Section 10, the Advisory Board after considering the materials placed before it and, if necessary, after calling for such further information from the Government or from the person concerned, as it may deem necessary, submits its report to the Government within ten weeks from the date of detention under the detention order. Under Section 11, after the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government

"may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit. "

It would thus be seen that according to the scheme of the Act the period of detention need not be fixed and that after the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion Sufficient, cause for the detention of the person concerned the Government is authorised to continue the detention of such person "for Such period as it thinks fit" and in my view an order of detention which does not specify the period of detention is by no means illegal. Certain observations made in the case of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A. I. R. (37) 1950 S. C. 27 : (51 Cr. L. J. 1383) decided by the Supreme Court of India also seem to indicate that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document