Skip to content


Giani Kartar Singh and ors. Vs. Rex - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1950CriLJ1069
AppellantGiani Kartar Singh and ors.
RespondentRex
Cases Referred and Emperor v. Sibnath Banerjee A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- - the perusal of the various orders on the record of the oaae clearly goes to show that the authorities concerned had fully satisfied themselves as to the necessity of passing the orders against the applicant before passing them. the counsel for the applicant wants me to go behind the orders and give a finding whether the authorities concerned were rightly satisfied or not. it has repeatedly been laid down by the various high courts as well as the federal court that it is not open to high court in a habeas corpus application to go behind such orders and substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the authorities concerned......a.i.r. (81) 1944 pat. 364 : 23 pat. 262 and emperor v. sibnath banerjee a.i.r. (30) 1948 f. c. 75 : 46 cr.l.j. 34l appear to be in support of this view.5. the habeas corpus application by gian kartar singh accordingly is rejected.
Judgment:
ORDER

Atma Charan, J.C.

1. This is an application by Giani Ear-tar Singh and sis others Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. Except Giani Kartar Singh all others are reported to have been released and are at present not under detention. Their habeas corpus application, as such, has now become infructuous, and is struck off.

2. Two main points have been raised on behalf of Giani Kartar Singh before the Court- firstly, that the Punjab Act, II [2] of 1947, has now ceased to have effect and secondly, that the order of detention has been passed on no sufficient grounds.

3. Punjab Act, II [20] of 1947, in my opinion, N has not as yet ceased to have effect. Section 93, Government of India Act, 1935, no doubt, now stands omitted by the India (Provisional Constitution) Order, 1947. Section 18 (3), Indian Independence Act, 1947, however, lays down that;

Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the law of British India and of the several parts thereof existing immediately before the appointed day shall, so far aa applicable and with the necessary adaptations, continue as the law of each of the new Dominions and several parts thereof until other provision is made by laws of the Legislature of the Dominion in question or by any other Legislature or other authority having power in that behalf.

Section 93(4), Government of India Act, 1935, lays down that

if the Governor...assumes to himself any power of the Provincial Legislature to make laws, any law made by him in the exercise of that power shall, subject to the terms thereof, continue to have effect until two years have elapsed from the date on which the Proclamation ceases to have effect, unless sooner repealed or re-enacted by Act of appropriate Legislature....

The proclamation certainly remained in force till 14th August 1947. The law has not so fall been repealed. There is thus no reason to suppose that Punjab Act il [2] of 1947 has now ceased to have effect.

4. The order of arrest, dated 18th February 1949 under a. 3 (1), Punjab Act II [2] of 1947, the order of detention for one month dated 10th February 1949, Under Section 3 (2) of the Act and the order of further detention, dated 17th March 1949, Under Section 3 (4) of the Act have all been produced before the Court. The perusal of the various orders on the record of the oaae clearly goes to show that the authorities concerned had fully satisfied themselves as to the necessity of passing the orders against the applicant before passing them. The counsel for the applicant wants me to go behind the orders and give a finding whether the authorities concerned were rightly satisfied or not. It has repeatedly been laid down by the various High Courts as well as the Federal Court that it is not open to High Court in a habeas corpus application to go behind such orders and substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the authorities concerned. Faiz Ahmad v. Emperor A.I.R. (35) 1948 Lah. 87 : 49 Cr.L.J. 161, Kamla Kant v. Emperor A.I.R. (81) 1944 Pat. 364 : 23 pat. 262 and Emperor v. Sibnath Banerjee A.I.R. (30) 1948 F. C. 75 : 46 Cr.L.J. 34l appear to be in support of this view.

5. The habeas corpus application by Gian Kartar Singh accordingly is rejected.


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