MAKHAN SINGH TARSIKKA v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Citation: [1952] 1 S.C.R. 368; 1951 INSC 56
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI , MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
1951 INSC 56. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1951-12-10. MAKHAN SINGH TARSIKKA v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
1952 Dec. 10. 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] MAKHAN SINGH TARSIKKA v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (PATANJALI SAS TRI c. J . , MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, ' MUKERJEA, DAs and Cl:IANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ. ] Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950 as amended in 1951), ss. 3(i), 9, 11, 12-0rder of detention fixing period of detention in initia~ or~er itself before . refe1·ence to (1. dvisory Board-Legalt:ty- Deprtvat1on of personal liberty-Duty to follo1v procedure stnctly. Whatever n1ight be the position under the Preventive Deten- tion Act of 19j0 before it \Vas amended i11 1951, under the Act as :unended in 1951, the Govern1nent should determine what the period of detention should be only after the Advisory Board to which the case is referred reports that the detention is justified. Fixing of the period of detention in the initial order itself is contrary to the schen1e of the Act and cannot be supported.
It cannot be treated as ::i mere surplusage as it would tend to prejudice a fair consideration of the dctenu's case by the Advi- sory Board, though he would have to be released forthwith if the Advisory Board reports that there is no sufficient cause for detention. ' Before a person is deprived of his personal liberty the pro- cedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected, ORIGINAL Juruso1c1'10N. Petition No. 308 of 1951. Application under article 32 of the C':onstitution for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus praying for the release of the petitioner from detention. H. J. Umrigar (amicus curiae), for the petitioner. S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General of the Punjab, (findra Lal, with him) for the respondent. 1951. December 10. The Judgment of the Court •- • was delivered by PATANJALI SASTRI c. J.
-This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution praying for the release of the petitioner from his alleged unlawful detention. We accepted the petition and, at the conclusion of the hearing, ordered the petitioner to be released. We now proceed to give the reasons for our order. S. C. R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 369 The petitioner was arrested and detained under an order dated 1st March, 1950, made by the District Magistrate, Amritsar, under section 3(1) of the Pre- ventive Detention Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the grounds of detention were com- municated to the petitioner as required by section 7 ()f the Act on 15th March, 1950. The petitioner challenged the validity of the order on various grounds, but, while the petition was pending after this Court issued a rule nisi to the respondent, the petitioner was served on 6th August with another detention order which the cas'e - - . . ,. , - 4 ,:~. -- S. C.
R, SUPREME COURT REPORTS 371 has been referred, reports that the detention is justifi- ed; the Government should determine what the period of detention should be and not before. The fixing of the period of detention in the initial order itself in the present case was, therefore, contrary to the scheme of the Act and cannot be supported. The learned Advoc:ite-General, however, urged that in view of the provU. ion in section 11(2) that if the Advisory Board repoi:ts that there is no sufficient cause for the deten- tion, the person concerned would be released forthwith, the direction in the order dated 30th July, 1951, that the petitioner should be detained till 31st March, 1952, could be· ignored as mere surplusage. We cannot accept that view.
It is obvious that such a direction would ·tend to prejudice a fair consideration of the petitioner's case when it is placed before the Advisol}' Board~ It cannot be too often emphasised that before a person is deprived of his personal liberty the pro- cedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected. " ' Petition allowed. Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta. BHAGAT SINGH v. THE STATE GURDEV SINGH-Caveator. -~SAYYED FAzL Au, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and . CHANDRASEKHARA 1\-IYAR JJ. ] Criminal Procedure Code (Tl of 1898), s. 234(1 )-Misioinder of charges-Firing single shot at ttl! o persons to kill them-Whether one off-tmce ok two offences. - The appellant was tried in respect of the following c)larg6: (i) causing the death of A and thereby committing an offenec punishable under s. 302, Penal Code, (ii) firing a short at B and 1951 Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. The State of Punjab. Pataniali Sastri C. /. 1951 Dec. 19.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.