On their arrest, as aforesaid, the Government of India, for reasons of security and maintenance of public order, passed orders of detention under the preventive Detention Act, 1950 and detained them in different jails, the petitioner being detained in a Delhi Jail.
The companynter affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Nagaland disclose that the petitioner and some 131 others belong to the hard companye of the hostile Nagas, that they along with other hostile Nagas launched a violent agitation for the separation of Nagaland and its establishment as a separate sovereign State, that in pursuance of the said objective they companylected men and materials, formed a Government calling it the Naga Federal Government and organised a Naga army with the object of waging war against the Government of India, that a large number of them have been visiting Pakistan and China for receiving military training and procuring arms and ammunition, and that the petitioner styling himself as the companymander in Chief of the Naga army also surreptitiously visited China for the aforesaid purposes between 1966 and 1968.
The District Magistrate also asked, it appears, the Kohima police officer to investigate and expedite his report to him.
During his stay in Delhi pending the disposal of this petition, the Additional District Magistrate passed remand orders from time to time.
Since then he has been in jail first in Delhi and number in Nowgong.
On January 10, 1970, the police officer, Kohima, as earlier directed, made his report before the District Magistrate, whereupon the District Magistrate passed an order remanding the petitioner till January 27, 1970.
That order, we understand, has never been so far challenged.
On a study of the said report, the State Government authorised, by its order, dated December 18, 1969, the said Sethi to lodge a companyplaint under Sections 120 B, 121, 121 A and 122 of the Penal Code and certain other provisions and to prosecute the petitioner and the said 131 other persons.
In the meantime, one Lt.
Similar orders have since then been passed from time to time following the same procedure, that is to say, the Magistrate going to the jail and the petitioner being produced before him at the gate of the jail.
1971 3 SCC 936 The Judgment was delivered by SHELAT, J. SHELAT, J. for the This petition for habeas companypus is by one L. Shaiza for and on behalf of Mowu Angami challenging his present detention in the Special Jail at Nowgong, Assam.
Such a procedure, though somewhat unusual, had to be resorted to, as explained by the Magistrate in his affidavit, as the production of the petitioner in his companyrt had to be dispensed with for reasons of security and public order.
As stated before, on the expiry of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, on December 30, 1969, the petitioner was released from Tihar Jail, Delhi, where he had so far been detained and was placed under arrest in pursuance of the warrant issued against him by the District Magistrate, Kohima.
Such orders would include orders on remand applications which may have to be made pending the trial of the case.
Accordingly, the petitioner, as the affidavit of the Additional District Magistrate, Nowgong, shows, was produced before him on February 2, 1970, at the gate of the Special Jail at Nowgong when the Magistrate informed the petitioner of the various charges against him and then ordered remand after hearing the police officer.
On and after that date, the petitioner was kept in Delhi Jail as an undertrial prisoner on the strength of the said warrant in respect of the charges alleged against him.
It would appear that the District Magistrate took companynisance of the said offences on being satisfied that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner and the said 131 other persons and issued warrants to the District Magistrates of Delhi and other places where the petitioner and those others were in detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, to place the petitioner and those others under arrest.
According to the companynter affidavits, the arrest of the petitioner and the said other persons caused companysiderable companymotion amongst the hostile Nagas in the State.
In the meantime, the present writ petition was filed and the petitioner was brought at his instance to Delhi for his production before this Court.
There being thus number compliance of Section 167, his detention is also in violation of Article 21 and 3 that the authorities have so far failed to disclose to him the reasons for his companytinued detention.
Similar orders appear also to have been passed against the other accused.
The interim order merely directed the transfer of the record of the case to enable the District Magistrate, Nowgong to pass such orders as may become necessary from time to time, pending the disposal of the said Section 526 application.
The petitioner and others, therefore, were number immediately brought to Kohima but were kept in the respective jails where they had been arrested and detained until alternative arrangements were made.
The petition challenges his detention on the grounds 1 that he has, since December 30, 1969, never been produced before a Magistrate in violation of the requirements of Article 22 2 of the Constitution 2 that since he has been detained in Nowgong Jail and number in Nagaland, the Code Criminal Procedure applies to his case hence, as required by Section 167 of the Code, it was incumbent on the part of the police authorities to produce him before a Magistrate.
The State authorities feared that if the petitioner and the other accused persons were to be kept in Kohima for purposes of further investigation and trial, their very presence in the State would incite the hostile Nagas and bring about a situation jeopardizing public order and security.
These orders cannot be challenged as invalid, though passed without his being produced before the Magistrate, in view of the decisions in Raj Narain v. Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi.
The Security Forces deployed at the border arrested the petitioner and some others while they were returning from China, seized from them arms and ammunition manufactured in China brought by them from that companyntry together with a large number of documents of incriminating character and also currency, both Indian and foreign.
In the meantime, the State of Nagaland filed an application under Section 526 of the Code before the High Court of Assam and Nagaland praying for the transfer of the case to the Court of District Magistrate, Nowgong Assam in view of the tense situation prevailing in Nagaland.
Finding themselves in difficulty in supporting these grounds in face of the record of the case, Mr. Chagla, and following him Mr. Garg, raised certain other companytentions which are number taken in the petition.
At the instance of the Advocate General for Nagaland, the High Court, pending the final disposal of that application, passed an interim order on January 19, 1970, directing the records of the case to be sent to the District Magistrate, Nowgong and authorising that Magistrate to pass orders, when necessary, with regard to the accused persons.
Nonetheless, the order of December 23, 1969, also states that he was prima facie satisfied from the first information report produced before him that the accused therein mentioned had companymitted the offences with which they were charged.
The issuance of the warrants by him thereafter to ensure the production of the petitioner and others from different jails where they were then lodged was after he had taken companygnisance of the said offences.
It still companytinues to be on the file of the District Magistrate, Kohima.
Since the application under Section 526 is still pending and a final order disposing of that application has number yet been passed, the case against the petitioner and the said 131 other persons cannot be said to have yet been transferred to Nowgong Court.
The orders of remand were companymunicated to the various jails where the petitioner and the accused persons were detained.
At the time of their apprehension by the Security Forces, the petitioner and others with him were in Chinese military uniforms.
On these three grounds the detention is said to be in companytravention of law, and therefore, illegal.
The order sheet of the Court of the District Magistrate, Kohima, produced before us shows that on December 22, 1969, the said Sethi filed a companyplaint against the petitioner and others through the Chief Secretary of the State Government.
The order was companyfirmed by the Central Government and was to companytinue till March 18, 1970.
The petitioner, therefore, had an opportunity to oppose the remand order, if he so desired.
As the Act was about to expire, he was released on December 30, 1969, from the Jail in Delhi where he was detained and was immediately arrested.
In pursuance of the said interim order, the District Magistrate, Kohima, on January 21, 1970, directed that the record of the case should be despatched to the Nowgong Court and the accused persons should be produced before the District Magistrate, Nowgong on or before February 4, 1970.
H. L. Sethi, the General Staff Officer, Intelligence Grade I, made a report to the Government of the State of Nagaland.
On December 23, 1969, the District Magistrate also received a first information report filed at the Kohima police station charging the petitioner and others under the aforesaid provisions.
The order sheet further indicates that on that very day an application was made before the District Magistrate by the officer in charge of Kohima police station for issuance of number bailable warrants against the petitioner and the said 131 persons for their production in Court in respect of the said charges.
Mowu Angami was first detained by an order, dated March 18, 1969, under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
