THOUNAOJAM LUKHOI SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE IMPHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Thounaojam Lukhoi Singh alias Surajkumar alias Ibotomba, son of late Th. Tomba Singh, Singjamei Makha Kakwa Huidrom Leikai, P. S. Singjamei, Imphal District, Manipur was detained by an order dated 22nd November, 1995 by the District Magistrate, Imphal, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3) of S. 3 read with S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereinafter, 'the Act'. Thereafter, the detenu has been furnished with grounds of detention by an order dated 25th November, 1995. The order of detention has been approved by the appropriate Government by an order dated 4-12-1995. The order of detention has been assailed in this writ petition on the following grounds :(a) Vital documents relied upon by the detaining authority on the basis of which the detaining authority derived satisfaction were not supplied to the detenu in Manipuri rendering;(b) Copies of police report which formed the basis of grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu and thereby deprived the detenu of making effective representation;(c) The detention order has been passed without application of mind inasmuch as the detenu was in jail and there was no cogent material before the detaining authority that the detenu would be released on bail; and(d) Delay in disposing of representation filed by the detenu.

(2.) We have heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the detenu, Mr. A. Jagatchandra, learned government Advocate for the respondents I and 2 and Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Central Government Standing Counsel at length.

(3.) Ground (a) Non supply of vital documents relied upon by the detaining authority to the detenu in Manipuri rendering.It is contended by Mr. A, Nilamani that the detenu read up to class X and unless the detenu is furnished the documents in Manipuri rendering, he would be deprived of making effective representation against the order of detention because he is not in a position of understanding legal language contained in grounds of detention. There is no dispute that the detenu read up-to Class X and person reading upto class X would not be in a position to understand the technical legal language contained in grounds of detention. In this connection, Mr. A. Nilamani particularly referred to the documents annexed in the grounds of detention and relied upon by the detaining authority, in clause (Io), (p) and (q). Clause (o) is the statement of S.I., N. Jotin Singh and S.I. Kh. Sarat Singh recorded under S. 161, Cr. P.C. Clause (p) is the statement of S.I. Kh. Nabachandra Singh of, Singjamei P.S. and C/No.8490020 Achouba Singh of SJM PS recorded under S. 161, Cr. P.C. in connection with F1R No. 203 (10) 95 SJM PS on 12-10-95 Clause (q) is the letter of Home Department, Government of Manipur Order No. 17(1) 49/80-H (Part) dated 28th September, 1995. We are of the view that the documents at clauses (o) and (p) are the vital documents and non furnishing of such documents to the detenu in Manipuri rendering would deprive the detenu of making effective representation. However, that is not the case. At the time of hearing of this petition, Mr. A. Jagatchandra, learned Govt. Advocate produced the relevant file in original bearing No. Civil/NSA/24/95, File No. 24. On perusal of the file, It appears that the entire documents including the history sheets and the translated copies of the documents have been furnished to the detenu on 27-11-95 at 2-40 p.m. and it bears the signature of the detenu showing that the documents along with the translated copies have been received by the detenu. Receipt of the history sheets in english appeared at page 455, Manipuri rendering at page 441 showing that the documents have been received on 27-11-95 at 2-40 p.m. bearing the signature of the detenu and counter-signed by the District Magistrate. So also documents referred to in clause (o), (p) and (q), Manipuri rendering ofwhich have been received by the detenu at pages 250, 246, 244, 245, 240 and 241 of the file as mentioned above. This would show that the detenu has been furnished with all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority in Manipuri rendering. Therefore, it cannot be said that the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were not furnished to the detenu with Manipuri rendering.