JUDGMENT : UNIYAL, J. :- These are petitions under Section 491, Cr. P.C. preferred by three persons detained under the Defence of India Rules by three separate orders passed by the State Government. 2. On the 9th of November, 1952 the State Government passed an order of detention under R. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules 1962, directing the detention of Sri Krishna Bhatt. In pursuance of the said order he was arrested on 13th of November, 1962. On the 21st of November, 1962, he made a representation to the State Government against his detention. And the latter after due consideration of the representation and other matters reviewed the detention of the petitioner under cl. (9) of R. 30-A of the Defence of India Rules on the 10th of February, 1963, rejecting the representation and ordering the continuance of his detention. 3. Sri Vidya Sagar Nautiyal was also detained by the order of the State Government passed on 9-11-1962. We was arrested on the 11th of November, 1962 and the said order of detention was reviewed on the 1st of April, 1963. His representation against his detention was rejected and he was duly informed about the same. 4. Dr. Damodar Singh Yadav was detained by art order of State Government dated 20th of November, 1962. On 21-11-1962 he was arrested. He made a representation to the Home Minister on the 24th of November, 1962, against his detention which was duly considered while reviewing his detention. Eventually on the 19th of February 1963, the State Government reviewed the detention at the petitioner and decided to continue the order of detention passed against him. 5. The order of detention in each of these cases was sought to be challenged on the ground that the same had not been reviewed within six months from the data of the order directing his detention under R. 30(1)(b) in accordance with R. 30-A(9) of the Defence of India Rules. 6. On behalf of the State an affidavit was filed by Sri Prem Kumar, Deputy Secretary in the Home Secretary's Branch, Government of Uttar Pradesh. In para 3 of the said affidavit, Sri Prem Kumar averred that the cases of each of the detenus had been reviewed within sin months from the date of the passing of the order of detention. On behalf of the State an affidavit was filed by Sri Prem Kumar, Deputy Secretary in the Home Secretary's Branch, Government of Uttar Pradesh. In para 3 of the said affidavit, Sri Prem Kumar averred that the cases of each of the detenus had been reviewed within sin months from the date of the passing of the order of detention. It was stated that the case of Sri Krishna Bhatt was reviewed on 10th of February, 1963 and the case of Vidya Sagar Nautiyal on 1st of April, 1963 and that of Dr. Damodar Singh Yadav on the 19th of February, 1963. The averments' made by Sri Prem Kumar were based on personal knowledge. No affidavit was filed on behalf of the detenus to challenge the said averment of Sri Prem Kumar. We, therefore, see no ground whatsoever for holding that the review in each of these cases had not been made within six months from the date of the passing of the order of detention. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners cited the case of State of Bombay v. Purshottam Jog Naik, AIR 1952 S.C. 317 , before us and sought to contend that the affidavit filed by the Deputy Home Secretary was not 'best evidence' and as such was not admissible to prove the facts stated therein. 8. In the case cited above, the Supreme Court was considering whether the affidavit filed by the Home Secretary could be regarded as sufficient for purposes of finding whether the State Government was 'satisfied' that the detenus should be detained in custody. The Bombay High Court against whose decision the appeal had been preferred before the Supreme Court had held that the affidavit filed by the Home Secretary was not sufficient to disclose the satisfaction of the State Government. The Supreme Court held that as a matter of abstract law, of course, the state of man's mind can be proved by evidence other than that of the man himself and if the Home Secretary has the requisite means of knowledge, for example, if the Minister had told him that he was satisfied or he had indicated satisfaction by his conduct and acts, and the Home Secretary's affidavit was regarded as sufficient in the particular case, then that would constitute legally sufficient proof. During the course of the judgement, Bose, J. speaking for the Court went on to observe to below : "But whether that would be enough in any given case, or whether the "best evidence rule" should be applied in strictness in that particular case, must necessarily depend upon its facts." The Supreme Court pointed out that the affidavit filed by the Home Secretary could be regarded as sufficient proof as to the State of mind of the State Government at the time of the making of the order of detention. Relying upon the observation made by the Supreme Court as to the "best evidence rule", it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that no reliance should be placed on the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department. It is not proper to read an observation made in the course of a judgement in isolation divorced from the facts of the case. It will have to be noticed that in the Supreme Court case cited the affidavit filed by the Home Secretary was considered to be a sufficient proof of satisfaction of the State Government. 9. In the present case the affidavit filed by Sri Prem Kumar, Deputy Home Secretary, is, in our opinion, clear and specific and proved that the State Government had reviewed the cases of each of the detenus and come to the conclusion that their detention should be continued. The orders of review in each of these cases had been made within six months from the date of the order of detention as required by cl. (9) of R. 30-A of the Defence of India Rules. Thus there was full compliance of cl. (9) of R. 30-A of the Defence of India Rules. 10. For the reasons given above we are of opinion that there is no force in these petitions. 11. They are accordingly rejected. Petitions rejected.