Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 284 (GAU)

Arambam Kameswar Singh v. District Magistrate

2004-04-22

AMITAVA ROY, P.P.NAOLEKAR

body2004
JUDGMENT P.P. Naolekar, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner Shri C. Choudhury, learned senior CGSC and Md. Jalaluddin, learned GA, Manipur. 2. The detention order under the National Security Act, 1980 has been issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District when the petitioner was under arrest in a criminal case bearing FIR No. 63 (11) 03/HNG-PS Under Section 121/121-A , 10/13 UA(P) Au, 25(1-C) Arms Act and 6(1-A) IWT Act. The petitioner was served with the detention order on 8.12.2003. He was given the grounds of detention on 11.12.2003. The detenu submitted his representation to the State Govt. as well as to the Central Govt. on 17.12.2003. The detenu's representation was considered and rejected by the State Govt. on 24.12.2003 in the meanwhile the detention order passed by the District Magistrate was approved by the State Govt. on 15.12.2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of detention issued by the District Magistrate infringes the mandatory provision of Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, inasmuch as the order of detention does not specify the period for which the detenu has been detained under the National Security Act. The detention order says that the petitioner is detained until further orders. 3. In a recent decision of this court in WP (Orl.) No. 27/2003 (Amrit Ballav Goswami @ Mizu Phukan v. The Union of India and Ors.), relying on the decision of the Apex Court in (1998) SCC 568 (Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Gurbox Anandram Bhiryani) this court has held that the provision of Sub-section 3 of Section 3 is mandatory in nature and is to be complied with for legal detention. Under Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Act the detention order is to specify and direct that the detenu has been placed under detention for the specific period. In the present case the detention order dated 8.12.2003 does not specify the period of detention and the direction of detention has been issued with immediate effect until further orders. The order of approval of the State Govt. also does not specify any period of detention. It merely approves the detention order passed by the District Magistrate. In the present case the detention order dated 8.12.2003 does not specify the period of detention and the direction of detention has been issued with immediate effect until further orders. The order of approval of the State Govt. also does not specify any period of detention. It merely approves the detention order passed by the District Magistrate. As the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Imphal East District detaining the petitioner is not in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the Act, it cannot be permitted to stand. We need not go into the other questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order of detention. 4. The habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu shall be set a liberty forthwith, if not required in any other matter. Petition allowed.