MAKHAN SINGH TARSIKKA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-1960-10-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on October 11,1960

MAKHAN SINGH TARSIKKA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMESHWAR SHAW VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BURDWAN [RELIED ON]



Cited Judgements :-

N.K. Upadhyaya VS. The State of Mysore and others [LAWS(KAR)-1965-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
BASI SINGH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1981-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
KANAI PAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1968-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASCHAND KHUSALCHAND BAKLIWAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1976-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
BAJIRAO BALIRAM MALI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1976-9-51] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1989-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
N.P. NATHWANI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-1975-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF TIRUNELVELI AND ORS. VS. SRI VANAMAMALAI MUTT, NANGUNERI, REPRESENTED BY HIS HOLINESS SRI VANAMAMALAI RAMANUJA JEER AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1967-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
BABU VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(DLH)-1965-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAKSHYA MUKHERJEE VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1968-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
BABU SON OF MOHAMMAD ISMAIL VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(P&H)-1965-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
PARVATIBEN KISHANLAL SONI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS [LAWS(GJH)-1988-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1989-8-39] [RELIED ON]
DR. R.V.N. SINHA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1975-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
MASOOD ALAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1973-1-23] [DISTINGUISHED]
SURAJ PAL SAHU SURAJ PAL SAHU VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-1986-9-44] [CONSIDERED]
SAMIR KAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1968-6-35] [REFERRED TO]
BINOD RAO VS. MINOCHER RUSTOM MASANI [LAWS(BOM)-1976-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BABU SAHNI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2002-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
GOPI RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-1966-4-10] [REFERRED]
JANARDAN PRASAD ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1966-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
DUNI RAVA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1984-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
J M JAIN ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE DEPARTMENT VS. GHAMANDIRAM KEWALJI GOWANI [LAWS(BOM)-1977-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNA RAWAT VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JABALPUR [LAWS(SC)-1974-10-11] [DISTINGUISHED]
MOHAN PUNAMIA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1966-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAKSHYA MUKHERJEE VS. THE STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1968-2-27] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

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.
;


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