- (1.) THE petitioner was detained Under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act of 1978 by Order No. 15/80 DMR dated 271-1981. The grounds of detention were communicated to the pelilioner and read as under : 1. Whereas in 1950 you took part in Praja Parishad Movement and were arrested and remained in jail for about 9 months. Thereafter you remained working for Col. Gupta of Army Intelligence where you came in contact with one Tara Chand r/o Sair (Now-shera) and started smuggling. Whereas, said Tara Chand who was a Pak agent, after his release from detention on parole revived his activities persuaded you to visit Danna (POK) to meet his old acquaintance to which you agreed and crossed over lo POK illegally. While on your way, you came across one Major and Sub. Fazal Allahi Malik (PAK) where you were introduced by Tara Chand to them who enlisted you as their source, on payment, Said Major briefed you regarding collection of Army intelligence Uke location, names and Tac. Mark of: Army Units and bridges etc. , you prepared a report of required information and passed on to your Pak masters through Tara Chand. You remained supplying such information for a year. One Munshi alias Nath r/o. Dannak (POK) who was your relative met you in 1968 and asked. you to mset one Nazir S/o Mahamda of Danna (POK ). Whereas, in 1969 Munshi and Nazir of POK came to your house and asked you to supply Army Intelligence. You along with Tara Chand crossed over to POK and went to the house of Munshi where you were introduced to sub-Afar of Pak Geog. Section who asked you to collect and pass on Army Intelligence which you collected and passed on to your Pak Masters, through Tara Chand; Whereas during December 1973 you cultivated one Kala Ram S/o Munshi r/o Bhowani to work for Pak FIU, who was taken across by Nazir and introduced to sub Malik Khan of FTU. Said Kala remained working for FIU under your guidance and supplying Army Intelligence. You persuaded your son-in-law serving in the Indian Army to work for Pak FIU and introduced him to a Major of Pak FIU who after having secret talks with him. enlisted him as Pak agent, who remained working under your guidance, who remained working as Pak Agent till 1975. Whereas in Nov/dec. 76 S/sh. Jagdish Raj and Isher Dass r/o Kadali admitted Pak agents brought a letter from Nazir on the basis of which you asked them to work jointly. In July/august 1977 you came in contact with. one Ajay Kumar of BSF and introduced him to Mr. Nazir of Pak and persuaded him to work for Pak. In Sept/oct. 1977 on receipt of message from Nazir you visited across and became head of the spy-ring comprising Isher Dass, Tara Chand, Jagdish and Nazir of POK and remained supplying Indian Army Intelligence to your Pak Masters. Whereas, you indulged in anti-national aclivities and worked as Pak agent supplying information of Army Intelligence to your Pak Masters. Whereas, you have been found acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and the country as you were paying clandestine visits to Pok for meeting Pak security Officers with purpose of passing on to them information of vital importance from this side; Whereas in order to prevent ;you in acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of State, you have been detained under PSA 1978 for one year. Now, therefore, the grounds are accordingly communicated to you Under Section 13 (1) of J. and K. PSA 1978 and you may, if you so Uke make a repre sentation against the aforementioned order to the Government.
(2.) THE petitioner has questioned his detention and has alleged that he had earlier been detained vide order dated 17-12-1980 passed by the District Magistrate but that detention order was revoked by the Government and thereafter he was detained under the impugned Order. That the grounds of detention which were served on the petitioner earlier and the grounds of detention which were served on the petitioner on his detention vide Order 27-1-1981, except for some minor changes, were exactly the same and that since his earlier detention had been revoked by the Government, he could not be detained on the same grounds again. It has further been alleged by the petitioner that the grounds of detention were neither translated, nor explained to him by the detaining authority, in the language which he understands and as such his detention stood vitiated. Another grievance made by the petitioner is that in any event the grounds of detention lacked particulars, were vague and various incidents referred to in the grounds of detention were not relevant to his detention Under Section 8 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978.
(3.) IN reply Mr. S. D. Sharma. the learned Addl. Advocate General has argued that since the earlier detention of the petitioner suffered from a technical defect inasmuch as the order of detention had not been sent to the Government within the specified lime, the same had to be revoked and that the said revocation of the earlier order of detention cannot in any way render his subsequent detention illegal. Relying upon the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Jail, in reply to the petition, Mr. Sharma has urged that the grounds of detention were properly translated and explained to the detenu in the language understood by him. It was also submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that reference to various incidents in the grounds of detention, was in the nature of an introductory part and the grounds of detention were neither vague nor indefinite. Urged the learned Counsel, that the activities of the petitioner being of a very serious nature. no further particulars could be given to him in the facts and circumstances of the case. Regarding the non-communication of evidence, it is submitted by Mr. Sharma that there was no such evidence which was required to be supplied to the detenu and that in. any event, the petitioner had not pointed out any such evidence of which he required to make an effective representation.;