TMI Blog1973 (7) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irected on March 2, 1972 to be released on his executing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/-. The bail bond furnished by him was accepted by the Sessions Court on March 14, 1972, on. which date of the petitioner was released from jail. On March 28. 1972, a fresh order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, which order was approved by the State Government on April 4. 1972. It is alleged that from March 14, 1972 to February 12, 1973 the petitioner did not appear before the Court in spite of repeated directions and undertakings given by his counsel. His application for exemption-from appearance was refused and thereafter on August 17, 1972 an application was made for taking action against him under s. 7 of the Act. On February 6, 1973 the detenu was declared a proclaimed offender. On March 12, 1973 he was arrested in Delhi and produced before a Delhi Magistrate who granted a transit remand for being produced before the Court at Batala and was accordingly produced before him on March 14, 1973. On March 15, 1973, the detention order dated March 28, 1972, was served on him. Representations made by him were rejected by the Government on April 10, 1973, and finally on April ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Pritam Singh crossed the border from the left side of Indian Picket Bohar Wadala onward by the side of Dhussi band and reached Pak Picket Takhatpur, wherefrom you were taken to Pak Security Office, Shakargarh in a jeep by Sub. Zafar. There Major Akhtar and Sub. Zafar talked with you in seclusion. You gave out all the details of 10th infantry Div. to your knowledge to the Major. Your particulars were noted down on a printed form which was got signed by you and you were also got photographed. You passed on the following documents and Military Intelligence to the Pak Security Officers : - (i)...Deployment statement of the Units under 25 Div. and other connected with units other than those under 25 Div. (ii)..There was no movement of the Army Units in Dera Baba Nanak and Gurdaspur areas at that time. The Major gave you Rs. 200/- as your remuneration and assigned you following task :- (i)...To collect information about the postings and trainings of the Officers under 10 Infantry Div. (ii) To collect any secret or top secret documents from any army...Officer. (iii) To collect any pamphlet about the Army training or containing technical number of the Indian Army Units ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with formation sign of the Sub Area units. (iii).A rough sketch about the road from Batala Dera Baba Nanak-Kalanaur towards village Pakiwan showing some villages prepared by you to go to and from Pakistan in connection with your espionage activities, incriminating documents, along with other papers. 6.....That on interrogation you have been found to be a pak Spy. 7.....That in case FIR No. 178 referred to in Para 5 above, you have been released on bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur and it is now likely that you will continue your spying activities for the Pakistan Intelligence services or by crossing over to Pakistan, you are likely to divulge intelligence collected by you about our National vital installations, Military formations and Civil Defence forces, to Pak authorities which would be highly prejudicial to the security of the State in these days of Pak hostilities. It was first contended that as no return was filed by the State Government, the petitioner is entitled to be set at liberty under r. 5 of O. XXXV of the Supreme Court Rules; secondly, there is no nexus between the object of the order of detention and the grounds of detention; thirdly, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore expired on December 1, 1971. Even if the first order was revoked due to a technical defect the same result follows. In Hadi Bandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack Anr.(1) it was urged on the analogous provisions of the Preventive (1) [1969] 1 S. C. R. 227 2 8 7 Detention Act 4 of 1950 that a detaining authority may issue a fresh,. order after revocation of an earlier order of detention if the previous order was defective in point of form or had become unenforceable in consequence of a failure to comply with the statutory provisions of the Act. Negativing this contention the Court observed at pp. '233- 234 there is nothing in s. 13(2) which indicates that the expression revocation means only revocation of an order which is otherwise valid and operative : apparently it includes cancellation of all orders-invalid as well as valid . In these circumstances after the date on which the order ceased to be in force, unless fresh facts had arisen on the basis of which the Central Government or a State Gov- ernment or an officer, as the case may be, was satisfied that such an order should be, made, the subsequent detention on the very same grounds would be invalid. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , between the grounds and facts which are two different connotation,, conveving different concepts. It was urged that while ground must have a nexus. with the object of the order of detention, facts stated therein need not necessarily have that nexus. We find it difficult to accept this distinction. While it is true that in s. 8 of the Act as also in its other provisions ground and facts are used in opposition to each other, they must be taken as referring to two different things. The grounds are conclusions of fact or reasons which have induced the detaining authority to pass the order of detention. Sometimes these are referred to as basic facts. Facts, however, constitute the evidence upon which the conclusions justifying the detention are made. In State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya ([1951] S. C.R. 167 at 178), it was observed- By their very nature the grounds are conclusions of facts and not a complete detailed recital of all the facts. The conclusions drawn from the available facts will show in which of the three categories of prejudicial acts ,the suspected activity of the particular person is considered to fall. These conclusions are the grounds and they must be sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a contingency in Masood Alam's (supra) case already referred to observed : It is to effectuate this restriction on the maximum period and to ensure that it is not rendered nugatory or ineffective by resorting to the camouflage of making a fresh order operative soon after the expiry at the period of detention, as also to minimise resort to detention orders that s. 14 restricts the detention of a person on given set of facts to the original order and does not permit a fresh order to be made oil the same grounds which were in existence when the original order was made . We do not think that the release of the detenu on bail by the Sessions Court would constitute fresh facts as would justify the impugned detention order, nor is there any substance in the contention that since in the first order of detention the security of the State and the maintenance of public order were mentioned and in the second order merely the security of the State was mentioned, they can be considered as fresh facts. Both the detention orders are passed under s. 3 ( 1 ) (a) (ii).....which set out the prejudicial acts under which the suspected actions of the detenu will fall and for which the detention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
