Skip to content


Chander Parkash Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) (Central Government) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Writ No. 47-D of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1967P& H209
ActsDefence of India Rules, 1962 - Rule 30 and 30(1); Constitution of India - Article 226; Official Secrets Act
AppellantChander Parkash
RespondentThe Union of India (Uoi) (Central Government) and ors.
Appellant Advocate Harbans Singh, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Parkash Narain, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....and seven others might be discharged as sufficient evidence for their judicial conviction was not forthcoming during investigation. on the same day i.e., on llth march 1965 the central government made separate orders under rule 30 of the defence of india rules for the detention of the petitioners. the detention orders are in identical terms except for the change of the name of the detenu and the number of the order, and, in the circumstances, it would be enough to reproduce the order in respect of one of the petitioners. it reads as under :-government of india ministry of home affairs, new delhi-11 the llth march, 1965.
Judgment:
ORDER

H.R. Khanna, J.

1. This judgment would dispose of two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Criminal Writs Nos. 47-D and 51-D of 1965), which have been filed by Chander Parkash and Raminder Singh respectively for issuance of writ for habeas corpus.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time Chander Parkash petitioner was a lower division clerk in the Directorate of Equipment in the Air Headquarters, while Raminder Singh petitioner was a lower division clerk in the Army Headquarters. On 6th December 1964 both the petitioners were arrested in connection with a case registered under the Official Secrets Act. Seven other persons were also arrested in that case and on 11th March 1985 an application was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, that the two petitioners and seven others might be discharged as sufficient evidence for their judicial conviction was not forthcoming during investigation. On the same day i.e., on llth March 1965 the Central Government made separate orders under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules for the detention of the petitioners. The detention orders are in identical terms except for the change of the name of the detenu and the number of the order, and, in the circumstances, it would be enough to reproduce the order in respect of one of the petitioners. It reads as under :-

Government of India

Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi-11

the llth March, 1965.


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