Gajendragadkar, J. -
(1.)The detenu Makhan Singh Tarsikka whose habeas corpus petition has been dismissed by the Punjab High Court, has brought this appeal before us by special leave. It appears that on October, 22, 1962, F. I. R. was filed at the police Station, Jandiale, alleging that offences under Ss. 307, 324, 364 and 367 I. P. C. had been committed by certain persons including the appellant. In pursuance of the investigation which commenced on receipt of the said F.I.R. the appellant was arrested on October 25, 1962. On October 26, 1962, Emergency was declared by the President. On November 1, 1962, the appellant was transferred to judicial custody of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar. Whilst the appellant was in jail custody, he was allowed to interview his friends and about nine persons interviewed him between 3rd November to 19th Nov. 1962. On November 20, 1962 an order of detention was passed against the appellant under Rule 30(1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the 'Rules' ) This order was served on the appellant on November 21, 1962 and it appears he was removed to the jail at Hissar. On January 30, 1963, he was brought back to Amritsar, and on February 9, 1963, he filed the present writ petition.
(2.)In his petition which was filed by the appellant, the main allegation which he made was challenging the validity of his detention was that the grounds set up in the order of detention were "very vague, concocted and totally false". The detention order had stated that the appellant was detained because he was found to be "indulging in activities prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil Defence by making propagandas against joining the armed and civil defence forces and by urging peopled not to contribute to the National Defence Fund". The order added that having regard to his activities, it was thought necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from carrying on the said prejudicial activities.
(3.)On March 4, 1963, the appellant made an additional affidavit in which he urged that the fact that the deponent was in confinement before the declaration of emergency on October 26, 1962 and the Chinese invasion, clearly showed that the allegations against the deponent were false and concocted. By this supplementary affidavit, the appellant furnished an additional ground in support of his original plea that the grounds on which his detention had been ordered were false and concocted.