1974 (10) TMI 97 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
2. Communication and explanation of the grounds of detention to the detenu.
3. Vagueness of the grounds of detention.
4. Detention order served while the petitioner was already in jail.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Detention Order:
The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu u/s 3(1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The petitioner was initially arrested on April 9, 1973, and released on April 24, 1973, due to insufficient evidence. He was re-arrested on April 29, 1973, following the detention order dated April 27, 1973.

2. Communication and Explanation of Grounds:
The petitioner argued that neither the grounds of detention nor the order confirming the detention were communicated and explained to him. The Court found that the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on April 30, 1973, and explained to him in Dogri. The petitioner signed in English to acknowledge this. The Court held that the grounds were duly communicated to the detenu.

3. Vagueness of Grounds of Detention:
The petitioner contended that the grounds of detention were vague, particularly the abbreviation "FIU" and the lack of specific dates and amounts. The Court held that the grounds, read as a whole, were reasonably clear and self-sufficient. The abbreviation "FIU" was intelligible in context, and the basic facts necessary for making a representation were communicated. The Court noted that non-disclosure of certain details was justified as their disclosure would have been against public interest.

4. Detention Order Served While in Jail:
The petitioner argued that the detention order was served when he was already in jail, making it a colorable exercise of jurisdiction. The Court found that on the date of the detention order (April 27, 1973), the petitioner was not in custody. The communication and endorsement to the Superintendent, Central Jail, were prepared in anticipation of the petitioner's arrest and admission to the jail. The Court concluded that the petitioner was not in jail when the order was served, thus negating this contention.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the detention order did not suffer from any defect warranting interference. The grounds of detention were found to be sufficiently clear and communicated, and the procedural requirements were met. The Rule was discharged.