Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 203 (JK)

Mohd. Iqbal Lone v. State Of J. &K.

2002-06-11

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2002
1. Detenue Mohammad Iqbal Lone while being held in FIR 78/2000 under sections 307 and 302 RPC and 3/4 ESA of Police Station Doom. Anantnag since 26-08-2000. was detained under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act vide District Magistrate Anantnag, respondent No. 2s order No. 2777-83 dated: 28-09-2000 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. This detention order is under challenge, 2. Petitioners counsel Mr. Khan confines his arguments and submissions to the following two grounds:- First. that the detenue is illiterate and the detention grounds have not been supplied to him in a language which he understands. He was not even explained the order of detention in Urdu or Kashmiri language which he understands. The grounds were not accompanied by translated copy thereof, thereby he has been prejudiced to make representation against the order to the Government; Second, that the detenue was not served the order. He is not also supplied material referred in grounds. There is no communication of the order. His detention is illegal and the order is vitiated. 3. District Magistrate Anantnag. respondent No. 2 has field counter, wherein, both the grounds are countered. Petitioner is stated to have been read over and explained the detention and the grounds in the language which he understood. Receipt has been obtained from him. Besides the detenue has been also supplied copy of the order and the receipt has been obtained from him. The detenue has been also informed of his right to represent against detention order. The detention is in order and petition merits dismissal. 4. Para 7 of the petition reads as under:- "7. That the detenue is illiterate and cannot understand English language. The detention grounds have been supplied to the detenue which were not understandable and intelligible to the detenue. The detention grounds written in English language and not translated with Urdu or Kashmiri translation thereof has prejudicially affected the detenus right of making the effective representation against the detention order. Para 8 reads asundcr:-"That the detenue has neither been served with the order of detention nor the material referred to in the grounds of detention. Non supply of the material referred to in the grounds of detention alongwith the detention grounds to the detenue has prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention. Para 8 reads asundcr:-"That the detenue has neither been served with the order of detention nor the material referred to in the grounds of detention. Non supply of the material referred to in the grounds of detention alongwith the detention grounds to the detenue has prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention. Consequently the detention of the detenue has been rendered void and illegal." 5. In counter, the paras are replied as under:- "That the detention warrant was executed and the detenue taken into preventive custody on 07-10-2000 after contents of warrant were read over and explained to him in Kashmiri and Urdu languages which the detenue fully understood which is evidenced by the executed copy of detention order whereupon the detenue has put his signature in lieu thereof. The grounds of detention were also served to the detenue and contents thereof read over and explained to him in the language which he understood." "That the material in the shape of grounds of detention stands supplied to the detenue. No other material including FIR has been relied for detention of the detenue." 6. From record made available is seen that the detenue has been supplied copy of detention order and the grounds. While supplying the copies, same has been read over and explained to him in Kashmiri and Urdu language(s) which he understood. His signature is obtained on the receipt, countersigned by the Superintendent, District Jail Kathua and by one Mohammad Abdullah, ASI of Police Station Dooru. Even the receipt is also on record signed by the detenue and the Superintendent District Jail Kathua. There is always a presumption of correctness in favour of official acts. This presumption conjointly with the counter on affidavit of the detaining authority abundantly makes it clear that the detenue has been supplied copies and also explained the order and grounds in Kashmiri and Urdu languages which he fully understood and that he has also been informed of his right to make a representation. Pursuant thereto, the detenue has appeared before the Advisory Board and has been heard thereto. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances, reference is made to case of Rustum Wani Vs. Pursuant thereto, the detenue has appeared before the Advisory Board and has been heard thereto. In the backdrop of facts and circumstances, reference is made to case of Rustum Wani Vs. State of J&K and another LPA (HC) 57 of 2001 wherein the Division Bench in itsjudgment dated: 28-08-2001 hasobserved:- "...Now the question arises that whether non supply of copy of grounds of detention in the language which is understood by him would make any difference because the detenue is an illiterate person. In our view, since admittedly, the detenue is an illiterate person, instead of supplying copy of the grounds of detention if it is explained properly and fully in the language understood by him. would be the sufficient compliance of the mandate of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution." 7. The grounds would show that the subjects involvement in militancy related activities is quite deep rooted, and that he is involved in grenade throwing, causing injuries and death of humans as would be seen by the FIR 79/2000 registered at Police Station Dooru under Sections 307 and 302 RPC & 3/4 Exp. Sub Act. Besides the detaining authority is fully aware of detenus substantive custody in a regular case. The detaining authority has in fact made out the compelling reasons to detain the subject under the Public Safety Act. Copy of FIR need not be given to the petitioner. In Kamarun-Nissa Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991. Sc 1640, the following observation of the Supreme Court applies on all foras to this case. "It is not sufficient to say that the detenue were not supplied the copies of the documents in time on demand but it must be shown that the non-supply has impaired the detenus right to make effective and purposeful representation. Demand of any or every document, however, irrelevant it may be for the concerned detenue, merely on the ground that there is a reference thereto, in the grounds of detention cannot vitiate an otherwise legal detention order. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but what is essential is that the detenue must show that the failure to supply the documents before the meeting of the Advisory Board has impaired or prejudiced his right, however, slight or insignificant it may be. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but what is essential is that the detenue must show that the failure to supply the documents before the meeting of the Advisory Board has impaired or prejudiced his right, however, slight or insignificant it may be. In the present case, except stating that the documents were not supplied before the meeting of the Advisory Board there is no pleading that it had resulted in the impairment of his right nor could counsel for the petitioner point out any such prejudice." In result, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition is not merited and therefore, in that view of the matter, dismissed. Record shall be handed over to Mr. R.Q. Gadda, GA against proper receipt.