Find a Lawyer

Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 34‑D and 35‑D of 1970, decided on 22nd June 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High, Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 1st May 1970, in Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 1970):

----S. 17‑Grounds of detention communicated to detention neither vague nor indefinite and giving clear notice to detention as to nature of prejudicial activities leading to their detention‑Confidential records ‑of detention placed before High Court and materials available in such records, conveyed to petitioner's counsel‑Lower Court's view that detaining authority had sufficient material for its satisfaction as to necessity of detention, in circumstances, held, did not call for interference.

Humayun Kabir Chowdhury, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. S.Hodar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both the Petitions):

Nemo for Respondents (in both the Petitions).

Date of hearing : 22nd June 1970.

‑Both these Petitions for special leave are directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of East Pakistan by which two petitions for habeas corpus were dismissed. The Petition No. 34‑D of 1970 relates to the detention of Dhirendra Chandra Das, the husband of the petitioner Shefali Rani Das. The Petition No. 35‑D of 1970 has been filed by Begum Amina Khatun in respect of the detention of her husband Abdul Awal. The High Court, by a single judgment, dismissed three habeas corpus petitions including the habeas corpus petitions filed by Shefali Rani Das and Begum Amina Khatun. The main ground on which the habeas corpus petitions were pressed in the High Court was that the cases of the detention were not referred to the Advisory Board as required under section 19(b) of the East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance, 1958. The learned Judges of the High Court rejected this contention on very good reason. This point has no more been pressed in the present petitions.

Mr. Humayun Kabir Chowdhury, learned counsel for the peti tioners submits that the grounds for detention of the detention are vague and indefinite and that there were no sufficient materials on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied as to the necessity for detention of the detention It appears that both the detention were served with the grounds of detention, along with the orders of detention, dated the 23rd January 1970 which were under challenge in the habeas corpus petitions. It was conceded before the High Court that the detention did not make any representation against the grounds of detention which were duly communicated to them. As regards the alleged vagueness and indefiniteness of the grounds of detention, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel is not correct. The grounds of detention numbering six which have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court were duly communicated to the detention. These grounds gave clear notice to the detention as to the nature of the prejudicial activities for which they have been detained. The detenus were informed about the note‑book and judicial confession of one Shamarnat who was alleged to be spying for India as a sadhu and that according to these documents they were also involved in spying. The learned Judges also looked into the confidential records of these detenus placed before them on behalf of the Government. The materials available in these records were also conveyed to Mr. Ghulam Hafiz, the learned counsel who represented the petitioners in the High Court. Having regard to the grounds stated in the detention orders and the matters contained in the confidential records, the learned Judges were of the view that there were sufficient materials for the satisfaction of the detaining authority as to the necessity of detention of these two detenus. In this state of things, our interference with the order of the High Court is not called for.

Both the petitions are dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.