JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-1982-4-4
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on April 22,1982

JASWANT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE petitioner has been detained under section 8(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 (hereinafter called the Act), pursuant to an order of the District Magistrate Jammu dated 17 -8 -1981, passed by him with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The grounds of detention which were served upon the petitioner read as follows: (1) After studying upto 9th class you started working at Bus stand Jammu as Coolie where you came into contact with one Ajit Singh alias Jeeta s/o Pira Singh, Police Station Ramgarh who allured you in September 1980 1st week for smuggling, across pak border, activities. You were introduced with Sansar Singh alias Shah, Prithvi Chand and Sansar Singh s/o Lal Singh who took you in a Taxi to Border and asked you to carry two crates of whisky across. You were there introduced with Mohd Sadiq a Pak Agent of P I U. The goods were exchanged with Opium etc. (2) In the 2nd week of September 1980, Mohd Sadiq and Ajit Singh took you and Jerman Singh to Pakistan and you were introduced to Pak F I U Officers Sub. Malik and Maj. Khan. Your photographs were taken. You were given the task of collecting the information regarding Army Units in Domana, location of B.S.F HQ. in Jammu. You were paid Rs. 100/ -IC and sent back to your own side. (3) In the 2nd week of October, 1980 you along with Jerman Singh and Ajit Singh crossed the border via Kundanpur and went to Mohd Sadiq who took you to PIU HQ Sialkote and there you, gave the following information to Maj. khan. (a) 13 Gorkha is located at Domana (b) BSF HQ is located at Palora, having three buses, seven trucks, ten one tons, seven jeeps and two mini buses, (c) Jammu Div HQ has been shifted to Satwari. You were paid Rs. 100/IC and also the task of collecting the information reg. BSF Commander, Army Units located in Miransahib, Nagrota and around Jammu City and you were sent back. (4) In 3rd week of December 1980 you crossed via Kundanpur post and went to Sialkote PIU HQ where you gave all the information collected by you for which you were paid Rs. 100/ - IC and sent back. (5) On 22 -6 -1981 you alongwith Ajit Singh and party crossed over the border where you handed over the information to PAK FIU officers. You were apprehended by the bush party on 23/24 June night at own site in border area. In view of the above, your activities have been detrimental to the security of State and Indian Armed Forces therefore with a view of preventing you from the activities which are prejudicial to the security of State, you are detained under PSA for a period of 12 months. Sd/ - district Magistrate, Jammuâ„¢
(2.) MR . B. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the detention of the petitioner on the ground that para No. 1 of grounds of detention is irrelevant as it has no co -relation with S. 8 of the Act. It is maintained that the allegations contained in para 1 of the grounds of detention deal with some alleged smuggling activities of the detenue and that since such activities do not fall within the ambit and scope of S. 8 of the Act the detention of the petitioner is illegal. Apart from this learned counsel has not questioned the detention on any other ground.
(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. S. D. Sharma, Learned Addl. Advocate General on the other hand para (1) of the grounds of detention is only in the nature of the preamble and designed to furnish the background history. It is argued that the grounds of detention are contained in para 2 to 5 and each one of those grounds has definite co -relation and reference to S. 8 (1) of the Act. Mr. B. B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to meet this argument of the learned Addl. Advocate General by urging that it is not permissible to split the grounds of detention with a view to find out if any part thereof is in the nature of introduction or preamble and that since in the grounds of detention it has not been mentioned that para 1 thereof is introductory, it is not now permissible to treat that ground as furnishing background history. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the, following observations of the Supreme Court in Mohd Yousuf Rather Vs. State of J&K and ors, AIR 1979 SC 1925; "It is not permissible to dissect or trisect the grounds of detention into introductory background and grounds as such. There is no warrant for any such division. So far as grounds of detention are concerned, no distinction can be made between introductory facts, back ground facts and grounds as such" For what follows, I am of the opinion that the argument of the learned Addl. Advocate General to the effect that para No. 1 is only an introductory paragraph designed to give the background and furnish the requisite information to the detenue, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has much force and that the order is not vitiated.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.