Skip to content


Bompalli Sathia Vs. Government of Hyderabad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1951CriLJ1527
AppellantBompalli Sathia
RespondentGovernment of Hyderabad
Excerpt:
.....grounds, which are available to the insured. if insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer and will be negation of the intention of the legislature and annihilate mandate of the provisions of sections 170 and 149 of the act. the insured can pursue appeal only after giving up the insurer as the appellant and not otherwise. in the instant case, the insurer has not withdrawn from party array but has remained prosecuting the appeal with the insured on the grounds which are available only to the insured. therefore, the joint appeal as filed by the insured and the insurer is not maintainable. section 166: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] claim for compensation accident due to mechanical defect in the vehicle ..........on august 4, 1950; the delay of six months being due to the preparations and furnishings of grounds of detention to a large number of detenus. copies of the grounds of detention of each detenue together with their orders of detention were furnished and they bear out the reasons of detentions as disclosed in the reply. on december 7, 1950 two certificates were filed to show that the persons certifying knew the detenus personally and the detenus have no concern with the activities of satyanarayana rao; they were supporters of the present administration and were primary members of the village congress. it also appears that prior to the filing of the application in this court, another application dated october 7, 1950 was given to the officer-on-special-duty alleging that the detenus.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This is an application by Sitaramam-ma for the Writ of HABEAS CORPUS to secure release of four detenus. The case was referred to the Pull Bench in view of certain important legal questions involved in the decision.

2 The application alleges that Chinna Rammayya, Gopayya, Narsayya and sitayya were arrested on March 19, 1950 and sent to Central Jail, Waiangal on March 24, 1950; wherefrom they have been transferred to Jalna Jail about nine months back; the applicant does not know the offence or the material on which they have been arrested, nor so far as she is aware, the detenus have been informed about the orders or the grounds of their detention; they are agriculturist, loyal subject of the Government have 150 acres of dry and 50 acres of wet cultivation, as well as pay Rs. 800/- as Government revenue; the police of Mahboobabad illegally without any reasons have arrested them who are her brothers and nephew, and the arrest, therefore, is illegal, 'ultra vires' and 'mala fide'.

3. Notice of the application was issued to the Government Advocate and in his reply of December 6, 1950, it is said that all the four detenus are closely related to one Theegla Satyanarayana, who is an underground dangerous hostile leader and who has committed a number of murders; the detenus were supplying provisions to the 'dalam' of Theegla Satyanarayana and were passing on information to the hostiles about the movements of the police and military; they have been detained under Preventive Detention Act and have been furnished with grounds of their detentions on August 4, 1950; the delay of six months being due to the preparations and furnishings of grounds of detention to a large number of detenus. Copies of the grounds of detention of each detenue together with their orders of detention were furnished and they bear out the reasons of detentions as disclosed in the reply. On December 7, 1950 two certificates were filed to show that the persons certifying knew the detenus personally and the detenus have no concern with the activities of Satyanarayana Rao; they were supporters of the present administration and were primary members of the village Congress. It also appears that prior to the filing of the application in this Court, another application dated October 7, 1950 was given to the Officer-on-Special-Duty alleging that the detenus were in fact distant relations of Satyanarayana and had no affiliation to any political party.

4. The three questions therefore which arise in the Case are: (i) Whether the statements relating to the past conduct of the detenus in the grounds of their detentions are justiciable; (ii) Whether the statements furnished in the ground are vague; and (iii) Whether the delay in communicating the grounds entitles the detenus to be released.

5. In a connected Pull Bench Case of Santh-amma v. State of Hyderabad A.I.R. (38) 1951 Hyd 128), we have held after reviewing the authorities that the correctness of statement relating to the past activities of a detenue contained in the grounds of detention is not justiciable. The reasons for this exclusion as explained in the Full Bench Case are that the satisfaction under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act being a subjective one, no Court can substitute its opinion of the material for that of the authority directing detention, and thereby hold the satisfaction to be wrongly reached. There is a difference between irrelevant ground and incorrect ground. To hold it incorrect, an adjudication of relevant facts is necessary, which means jurisdiction to order production of the relevant data and this jurisdiction cannot be exercised in view of Article 22, Clause (6) of the Constitution of India. That conclusion applies to the facts of this application also; for the applicant in this case also alleges her brothers and nephew to have no communist affiliation which is contrary to that mentioned in their grounds of detention.

6. As regards the question of vagueness, in the recent case of 'Ram Singh v. State of Delhi' : [1951]2SCR451 , the test when the grounds of detention be held vague given in the earlier case has been re-affirmed. The test is that if on reading the ground furnished it is capable of being intelligently understood and is sufficiently defined to furnish materials to enable the detained persons to make a representation against the order of detention, it cannot be called vague. The grounds of detentions in the particular case cannot in view of the above test be held to be vague. The applicant has sufficiently understood it, has adduced certificates to contradict the statements and had also applied to the Special Officer challenging the correctness by asserting the detenus to have no political affiliation. The argument for granting the Writ on the ground of vagueness therefore fails.

7. The last argument is of delay. In the Full Bench Case of 'Battu Santhamma' (A .I .R. (38) 1951 Hyd 128 F B) we have relied on the observation of another Pull Bench Case of Bombay High Court where it has been held that it is a question of fact in each case whether there has been delay or not. In the case, we held that having regard to the prevailing circumstances at the time of the passing of the Preventive Detention Act and afterwards the delay in the case was explained. Similar reply has been given in the case, i.e., the Government had to dealt with a large number of grounds amounting in all to nearly four thousand. We are of opinion that the delay in this case is also explained and there are no reasons to allow the application., Therefore, it is disallowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //