Skip to content


SaifuddIn Sood Etc. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1971SC1529; 1971CriLJ1162; (1971)3SCC757; 1971(III)LC526(SC)
ActsJammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 - Sections 3(1), 3(2), 5, 8 and 13A
AppellantSaifuddIn Sood Etc.
RespondentState of Jammu and Kashmir
Excerpt:
- labour & services back wages: [tarun chatterjee & v.s. sirpurkar, jj] termination of services - re-instatement - acquittal of an employee in a criminal proceeding on benefit of doubt held, employer has a right to decide whether or not such an employee deserves any salary for the intervening period. there is no inflexible rule that in every case when an employee is exonerated from disciplinary/criminal proceedings, he should be automatically entitled to salary including all benefits for the intervening period. - the orders specifically stated that the government was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner pre judicial to the security of the state, it was necessary to detain him......saifuddin alleges that he was arrested by the police on 4th october, 1970 without any order of arrest or detention. he also alleges that he was not given any cause of arrest or detention at the time of his arrest or thereafter. he therefore challenges that his arrest under the jammu and kashmir preventive detention act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the act) is illegal.3. the answer is filed by a.r. khajuria, deputy secretary to the government of jammu & kashmir.it is stated there that the petitioner was detained by the orders of the secretary to the government dated 20 june, 1969. he was detained under section 3(1)(a)(i) read with section 5 of the act. the orders specifically stated that the government was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any.....
Judgment:

A.N. Ray, J.

1. The petitioner in these three writ petitions asked for orders in the nature of habeas corpus.

2. The petitioner Saifuddin alleges that he was arrested by the police on 4th October, 1970 without any order of arrest or detention. He also alleges that he was not given any cause of arrest or detention at the time of his arrest or thereafter. He therefore challenges that his arrest under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive detention Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is illegal.

3. The answer is filed by A.R. Khajuria, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jammu & Kashmir.

It is stated there that the petitioner was detained by the orders of the Secretary to the Government dated 20 June, 1969. He was detained Under Section 3(1)(a)(i) read with Section 5 of the Act. The orders specifically stated that the government was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner pre judicial to the security of the State, it was necessary to detain him. The order was served on the petitioner on 20 June, 1969 by reading over the same and explaining to him in Urdu language. The Government on 28 June, 1962 passed an order pursuant to Section 8 read with section ISA of the Act that it was against the public interest to disclose the facts or to communicate to the petitioner the grounds on which his detention order was made. The petitioner was informed of this order.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition bearing No. 307 of 1970 in this Court challenging the detention order. The petition was dismissed by this Court on 3 November, 1970.

5. The answer filed by the Government is that the petitioner was detained under the order dated 20 June, 1969 It is denied that he was detained under any order of detention on 4 October, 1970. The affidavit evidence of the Government is that the petitioner Saifuddin is a Pakistan agent and was deputed for collecting information pertaining to vital defence installations in the State which he has been transmitting to Pakistan intelligence authorities.

6. The provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act specifically empower the Government not to disclose the facts which may be against the public interest. Under Section 13A of the Act the duration of detention may not be longer than six months from the date of detention without obtaining the opinion of any Advisory Board The present case is covered by the proviso to Sub-section (I) of Section 13A. The proviso to Section 13A(I) states that where any person is detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner pre judicial to the security of the State and the grounds on which the detention order has been made are not communicated to him under the proviso to Section 8(I) such person may be detained for a period of two years from the date of detention without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board.

7. Further the detention order of the petitioner Saifuddin was not required Under Section 3 of the Act to be approved by the Government because the order of detention was itself made by the Government. It is only when the Divisional Commissioners and the District Magistrates in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 make an order that report of the fact is made to the Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days unless in the meantime the order is approved by the Government. Therefore in the present case the order being made by the Government under Sub-section (I) of Section 3, the approval of the Government was not necessary.

8. The detention of the petitioner Saiffuddin is lawful and valid.

9. The petitioner Biro Khan challenges his detention on the ground that he was arrested after his release by the Sessions Judge in the month of May, 1970 having under gone a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment in a criminal case, and his detention is challenged as illegal.

10. The affidavit answer to Biro Khan's petition is that he was detained by an order dated 16 June, 1970. The order was passed Under Section 3(2) read with Section 5 of the Act. The order was served on the petitioner on 17 June, 1970. He was said to be a national of the Pakistan occupied Kashmir. The order further stated that in exercise of power Under Section 8 read with Section 13A of the Act, it was against the public interest to disclose the grounds of detention. The petitioner was informed of the order. The order of detention was placed before the Government Under Section 3(3) of the Act. The Government approved the detention. The petitioner was informed of the said approval on 6 July, 1970. There is no valid reason to hold that the detention is unlawful.

11. The third petitioner Baily Ram also challenges his detention on the ground that he was arrested on 4 August, 1970 and the detention is challenged as unlawful for the reasons mentioned by the other petitioners.

12. The affidavit answer is that the petitioner was served with orders on 14 August, 1970. The order dated 13 August, 1970 by which he was arrested stated that it was necessary to detain the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2) read with Section 5 of the Act. The order further states that Under Sections 8 and 13A of the Act the communication of the grounds would be against the public interest. The order of detention was placed before the Government Under Section 3(3) of the Act. The Government by an order dated 3 September, 1970 approved the order of detention. There is no valid reason to hold that the detention is unlawful.

13. The answers given by the government to all the three petitions indicate that the order of detention is valid in each case of a period of 2 years from the date of the order of detention under the proviso to Section 13A(I) of the Act without approval of the Advisory Board.

14. The petitions are therefore dismissed.


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