TMI Blog1974 (10) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate remanded him to police custody for a further period of five days. After interrogation, he was let off by the police on April 24, 1973 under Section 169 of the CrPC for want of sufficient evidence. 3. According to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, the petitioner was, about 5 days after his release, arrested from his village Pindi Charkan Kalan by the Station House Officer, Bishna on April 29, 1973 in execution of the impugned order of detention that had been passed against him by the District Magistrate on April 27, 1973. He was committed to Central Jail, Jammu on April 30, 1973. 4. The order of detention stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State it is necessary so do . 5. The particulars of the grounds of detention which according to the respondents, were served on the detenu, were: Shri Vakil Singh cited above is a Pak Agent, who worked for Pak FIU. He supplied Indian Army information to Pak FIU Officers through Mian Reham of Jumbian a notorious Pak agent and courier. He also paid various visits to Pudwal, Maharajke and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;) should be read along with the detention order (Annexure 'A') and the categorical averments made in the two counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the State. Thus read, it is maintained, it would be clear that on April 27, 1973, the petitioner was not in custody. 10. It appears to us that the contention of Mr. Mehta must prevail. 11. It is the case of the petitioner himself that he was committed to the Central Jail, Jammu on April 30, 1973. No capital therefore could be made out of the endorsement, dated April 27, 1973, asking the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jammu to serve the grounds annexed to that letter upon the detenu. Obviously, the communication together with the endorsement thereunder to the Superintendent, Central Jail, was prepared, in anticipation of the arrest and admission of the petitioner to the Central Jail, Jammu in pursuance of the order of detention. The mere fact that this communication and the endorsement to the Superintendent of Jail bear the date 'April 27, 1973', is of no avail to the petitioner when it is common ground that on that date he was not an inmate of the Jail. For the same reason, the words has been detained in the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. 16. The Deputy Secretary, however, has explained that Shri Parma Nand, who had passed the detention Order, is no longer District Magistrate Jammu and is not available for swearing this affidavit . In view of the fact that this further affidavit has been filed at short notice with the permission of this Court, we think that the explanation given for not filing the affidavit of Shri Parma Nand is not unsatisfactory. The Under-Secretary and the Home Secretary who have filed the first and the subsequent athdavits, respectively, are responsible officers in the Home Department of the Secretariat, which, as stated by Mr. Mehta at the Bar, deals with the case of such detenus. 17. In the Counter, the Deputy Secretary has stated that the petitioner was first arrested by the Police of Police Station Bishna on April 9, 1973, for investigation of the case FIR No. 5 of 1973 registered in that Station. He was kept in custody under orders of remand obtained from Magistrates for interrogation, and was released by the Police under Section 160, Cr.P.C. for want of sufficient evidence on 24-4-1973. He was rearrested by Station House Officer, Bishna in execution of the Detention Order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been served upon the detenu and explained, to him, but also the signatures of the detenu, in English, in token of such service. 21. These records confirm what has been stated by the Deputy Secretary in his affidavit on these points. We have no reason therefore, to doubt the correctness of the facts as averred by the Deputy Secretary. 22. Thus it stands established that on the date when the order of detention was served upon the petitioner he was neither in police nor in jail custody. In view of this finding, it is not necessary to examine whether a detention order made against and served upon a person in jail is valid. Nor do we propose to overburden this judgment with an academic discussion of the various decisions of this Court bearing on that question, cited at the bar. Suffice it to say that point (4) does not arise. 23. Dilating on point (2), Mr. Mukhoty contends that the records produced by the State purporting to bear the endorsements of the Police Officer and the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Jammu, respectively, might be a fabrication. In this connection he has pointed out three circumstances: First, that in the earlier affidavit filed by Shri Tiku, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the dates on which the petitioner met Mian Reham or paid visits to Pudwal, Maharajke and Sialkot had not been disclosed, nor was the amount of money received from Pakistan FIU mentioned in the 'grounds'. 28. This contention also appears to be devoid of force. 29. We have reproduced the particulars of the grounds of detention, in full, earlier in this judgment. Read as a whole they appear to be reasonably clear and self-sufficient to bring home to the detenu the knowledge of the grounds of his detention. The abbreviation FIU occurs four times in these grounds, but each time in conjunction with PAK, and twice in association with the words 'Pak Officers'. The collocation of words and the context in which FIU occurs makes its purport sufficient intelligible. 'Grounds' within the contemplation of Section 8(1) of the Act means 'materials' on which the order of detention is primarily based. Apart from conclusions of facts 'grounds' have a factual constituent, also. They must contain the pith and substance of primary facts but not subsidiary facts or evidential details. This requirement as to the communication of all essential constituents of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
