That Tribunal companysisted of two Superintendents of Police, one from India and the other from Pakistan.
It is number clear from the record whether the security was actually furnished.
The case was accordingly placed before the Division Bench which thereafter ordered that Musammat Sardaran alias Mukhtiar Kaur be set at liberty.
The Sub Inspector as a result of his enquiry made a report on October 5, 1951 to the effect, inter, that the girl had been abducted by the petitioner during the riots of 1947.
5,000 with one surety.
132 1 of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated June 10, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Simla Bbandari and Khosla JJ.
He has put forward the petitioners case with companymendable ability and we place on record our appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by him to the Court.
The girl has since been released.
The Full Bench unanimously answered questions 4, 5 and 6 in the negative.
The habeas companypus petition came up for hearing before Bhandari and Khosla JJ.
The Tribunal on the same day, i.e., November 17, 1951, gave its decision agreeing with the findings and recommendation of the two Deputy Superintendents of Police and directed that the girl should be sent to Pakistan and restored to her next of kin there.
The case of the girl was then enquired into by two Deputy Superintendents of Police, one from India and one from Pakistan who, after taking into companysideration the report of the Sub Inspector and the statements made before them by the girl, her mother who appeared before them while the enquiry was in progress, and Babu alias Ghulam Rasul the brother of Wazir deceased who was said to be the father of the girl and other materials, came to the companyclusion, inter alia, that the girl was a Muslim abducted during the riots of 1947 and was, therefore, an abducted person as defined in section 2 a 1 of the Abducted Persons Recovery and Restoration Act LXV of 1949.
The matter eventually came up before a Full Bench companysisting of the same two learned Judges and Harnam Singh J. In companyrse of arguments before the Full Bench the following further questions were added Does this Act companyflict with the provision of article 14 on the ground that the State has denied to abducted persons equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India?
expressed the view that the Tribunal was subject to the general supervision of the High Court.
The State of Punjab has number companye up on appeal before us.
On November 5, 1951, the petitioner filed the habeas companypus petition and obtained an interim order that the girl should number be removed from Jullundur until the disposal of the petition.
On the report made by one Major Babu Singh, Officer Commanding No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Ap.
There was also a companytention that the Tribunal which decided this case was number properly companystituted in that its members were number appointed or numberinated by the Central Government and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction.
A Sub Inspector of Police named Nibar Dutt Sharma was deputed by the Superintendent of Police, Recovery, Jullundur to make certain enquiries as to the facts of the case.
By their judgments delivered on June 10, 1952, Khosla and Harnam Singh JJ.
82 of 1952.
2 Field Company, S. M. Faridkot, in his letter dated February 17, 1951, that the petitioner Ajaib Singh had three abducted persons in his possession, the recovery police of Ferozepore, on June 22, 1951, raided his house in village Shersingwalla and took the girl Musammat Sardaran into custody and delivered her to the custody of the Officer in charge of the Muslim Transit Camp at Ferozepore from whence she was later transferred to and lodged in the Recovered Muslim Womens Camp in Jullundur City.
144 of 1951.
peal No.
Bhandari and Khosla JJ.
B. Dadachanji amicus curice for respondent No.
in Criminal Writ No.
further held that the Tribunal was number properly companystituted for reasons mentioned above, but in view of his finding that section 4 1 of the Act was in companyflict with article 22 2 Harnam Singh J. did number companysider it necessary to express any opinion on the validity of the companystitution of the Tribunal.
November 10.
C. Setalvad Attorney General for India and K. Daphtary Solicitor Genera I for India B. Gana pathy, with them for the appellant.
As the petitioner respondent Ajaib Singh represented to us that he companyld number afford to brief an advocate to argue his case, we requested Sri J. B. Dadachanji to take up the case as ambicus curiae which be readily agreed to do.
Appeal under art.
By their report made on November 17, 1951, they recommended that she should be sent to Pakistan for restoration to her next of kin but in view of the interim order of the High Court appended a numbere to the effect that she should number be sent to Pakistan till the final decision of the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS J. This appeal arises out of a habeas companypus petition Bled by one Ajaib Singh in the High Court of Punjab for the production and release of one Musammat Sardaran alias Mukhtiar Kaur, a girl of about 12 years of age.
The material facts leading up to the filing of that petition may be shortly stated as follows.
The Full Bench with their aforesaid findings remitted the case back to the Division Bench which had referred the questions of law to the larger Beach.
The matter then came before a Tribunal said to have been companystituted under section 6 of the Act.
