Harish Chandra, J. - (1.) In these criminal Miscellaneous cases the point that arises is whether an order of detention passed under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV [4] of 1950) which does not specify the periods of detention is valid. In the case of M. M. Bashir v. State, 1950 A. L. J. 518: (A. I. R. (38) 1951 ALL. 357) a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that such an order was not legally valid. He has based his finding on the analogy of the sections of the Penal Code which prescribe punishments for various offences. It is pointed out that although in all these sections only the maximum periods of imprisonment to which the offender may be sentenced are specified, still Courts while convicting offenders under these sections pass sentences of imprisonment upon them for definite terms. In these sections the words generally used are to the effect that the offender "shall be punished with imprisonment.... which may extend to...." These words, in my view, indicate that the sentence of imprisonment must be for a definite term which in no case is to exceed the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for that particular offence. There are provisions in the Penal Code as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure (e.g. Section 73, Penal Code and Sub-section (2) of Section 367, Criminal P. C.) which cleanly indicate that the imprisonment to which offenders may be sentenced under the Penal Code must be for a specific term. But the position under Section 3, Preventive Detention Act, 1950, seems to be entirely different and it does not seem necessary under that section that the order of detention should specify the period during which the detenu would be kept under detention. An examination of the scheme of the Act would also indicate that this is so. Section 3 gives power to the Central Government or the State Government in certain circumstances to "make an order directing that Such person be detained." The same power is also given to the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as also to the Commissioner of Police in a presidency town under certain conditions. Under Section 7, when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order is required to communicate to him, as soon as may be, the grounds on which the order has been made and to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Under Section 9, in every case where a detention order has been made under Section 3, the Government is required within six weeks from the date of detention to place before an Advisory Board the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any made by the person affected by the order. According to Section 10, the Advisory Board after considering the materials placed before it and, if necessary, after calling for such further information from the Government or from the person concerned, as it may deem necessary, submits its report to the Government within ten weeks from the date of detention under the detention order. Under Section 11, after the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government "may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit." It would thus be seen that according to the scheme of the Act the period of detention need not be fixed and that after the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion Sufficient, cause for the detention of the person concerned the Government is authorised to continue the detention of such person "for Such period as it thinks fit" and in my view an order of detention which does not specify the period of detention is by no means illegal. Certain observations made in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, A. I. R. (37) 1950 S. C. 27 : (51 Cr. L. J. 1383) decided by the Supreme Court of India also seem to indicate that under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, it is not necessary that the period of detention should be specified in the detention order. Kania C. J., in the course of his judgment observes : "It was argued that Section 11 of the impugned Act was invalid as it permitted the continuance of the detention for such period as the Central Government or the State Government thought fit. This may mean an indefinite period. In my opinion this argument has no substance because the Act has to be read as a whole. The whole life of the Act is for a year and therefore the argument that the detention may be for an indefinite period is unsound. Again, by virtue of Article 22 (7) (b), the Parliament is not obliged to fix the maximum term of such detention. It has not so fixed it, except under Section 12, and therefore it cannot be stated that Section 11 is in contravention of Article 22 (7)." The following also occurs in the judgment of Mahajan J. "Section 11 of the Act was also impugned on the ground that it offended against the Constitution inasmuch as it provided for preventive detention for an indefinite period. This section, in my opinion, has to be read in the background of the provision in Sub-clause (3) of Section 1 of the Act which says that the Act will cease to have effect on 1-4-1951. Besides, the words 'for such period as it thinks fit' do not in any way offend against the provisions of Article 22 wherein Parliament has been given the power to make a law fixing the maximum period for preventive detention. It has to be noted that Parliament has fixed a period of one year as the maximum period for the duration of detention where detention has to be without reference to an Advisory Board. In my opinion, there is nothing in Section 11 which is outside the constitutional limits of the powers of the Supreme Legislature." An order of detention, which does not specify, the period of detention cannot thus be regarded as illegal or invalid.
(2.) In Cri. Misc. Case No. 1334 of 1950 (Ram Adhar Misra v. State) a further point has been taken that the grounds of detention communicated to the applicant under Section 7 of the Act are vague and indefinite and our attention has been drawn to the case of Rex v. Durga Das, 1948 A. L. J. 491 : (A. I. R. (36) 1949 ALL. 148 : 50 Cr. L. J. 214 F. B.) in which a Full Bench of this Court took the view that the grounds and particulars communicated to the detenu "must not be vague, indefinite or incomplete and must convey sufficient information to the detenu to enable him to make a representation that the detaining authority was wrong in its belief that his detention was necessary in the interest of public safety etc." That decision was based on the provisions of the U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947 (U. P. Act IV [4] of 1947). But in my view the law applies equally to a case falling under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, under which too the grounds of detention have to be communicated by the authority making the order of detention to the detenu as soon as may be and such authority is further required to afford him an opportunity of making a representation against the order. A perusal of the application, however, shows that this point has hot been taken in it on behalf of the applicant. A perusal of the application further shows that even if it be conceded that the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu were vague, he himself knew what incidents were being referred to and was therefore hot prejudiced by any defect in the grounds themsleves. In Durga Das's case, (1948 A. L. J. 491 : A. I. R. (36) 1949 ALL. 148 : 50 Cr. L. J. 214 F. B.), the Court while considering the case of Amir Hasan found that the particulars supplied to the detenu did not contain all the necessary particulars and that details of the date, time and place etc., when certain arms and ammunition were said to have been recovered from his house, had not been given. But it appealed from an affidavit filed in the High Court that the applicant himself knew what incident was being referred to and was not prejudiced. The Court therefore held that there had been a substantial compliance with the provisions of the Act. I, therefore, see no reason to hold that there has not been in this case a substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 7, Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
(3.) Some of the detenus, namely, Bhagwan Prasad, Ram Dularey, Sami Ullah Khan, Hargend Singh and Acharya Deepankar were present in person and were given an opportunity of addressing this Court personally with respect to their respective cases. But apart from the fact that their orders of detention did not specify the period of detention, which matter has already been dealt with above, the points raised by them are not relevant to the matters which are before us and need not be discussed.;