Skip to content


Dhadhal Kanthad Valeg Vs. Saurashtra State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1953CriLJ1247
AppellantDhadhal Kanthad Valeg
RespondentSaurashtra State
Excerpt:
- - the advisory board's report having been made within ten weeks and the government having taken action thereon within throe months of the order of detention, the further detention of the petitioner is perfectly valid......of the detention order and this requirement has been duly complied with in this case. in case the board reports that there was sufficient cause for detention of the person the government may confirm the detention order under section 11(1) and continue the detention of the person, but this latter order need not be made within ten weeks nor need it be communicated to the detenu within that period. no fresh warrant was required to be issued and there is, therefore, no point in the further contention that it should have been issued within ten weeks of the original order of detention. moreover the communication to the petitioner of the confirmation order dated 6.5.1952 was merely an intimation of the government's decision to continue his detention, and does not amount to a warrant of arrest.....
Judgment:

Shah, C.J.

1. This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the petitioner Dhadhal Kanthad Valeg who was arrested and detained on 18.2.1952 under the Preventive Detention Act by an order of the District Magistrate, Madhya Saurashtra District, dated 14.2.1952. The grounds of the detention were supplied to the petitioner on 25.2.1952 and they were that the petitioner was remaining in contact with dacoit Bhupat and his gang, that on 11.10.1951 he gave shelter to Bhupat and Lakhu at his house and his wadi and had helped them and that in this manner he was harbouring the dacoits.

2. The petitioner's case was referred by the Government to the Advisory Board on 17.3.1952 and the Advisory Board made its report on 19.4.1952 recommending that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner's detention. The Government thereupon confirmed the detention order on 6.5.1952.

3. The only contention made by the petitioner, who appears in person, is that he could not be kept in detention for more than ten weeks and that if the detention was to be continued beyond the period of ten weeks, a fresh warrant should have been issued within the said period of ten weeks. The Government informed the petitioner of the confirmation order on 6.5.1952 and the petitioner treats this as a fresh order and his grievance is that the said order should have been passed within ten weeks of the original order of detention. The petitioner's contention is not correct. Under Section 10(1), Preventive Detention Act, the Advisory Board is required to submit its report to the Government within ten weeks from the date of the detention order and this requirement has been duly complied with in this case. In case the Board reports that there was sufficient cause for detention of the person the Government may confirm the detention order under Section 11(1) and continue the detention of the person, but this latter order need not be made within ten weeks nor need it be communicated to the detenu within that period. No fresh warrant was required to be issued and there is, therefore, no point in the further contention that it should have been issued within ten weeks of the original order of detention. Moreover the communication to the petitioner of the confirmation order dated 6.5.1952 was merely an intimation of the Government's decision to continue his detention, and does not amount to a warrant of arrest as has been supposed by the petitioner. The Advisory Board's report having been made within ten weeks and the government having taken action thereon within throe months of the order of detention, the further detention of the petitioner is perfectly valid. We, therefore, dismiss this petition.


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