On the 6th March, 1963, the appellant filed a third affidavit in which he stated that his political activities as a member of the Legislative Assembly were disliked by the High ups.
By this supplementary affidavit, the appellant furnished an additional ground in support of his original plea that the grounds on which his detention had been ordered were false and companycocted.
On the 20th November, 1962, an order of detention was passed against the appellant under Rule 30 1 b of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 hereinafter called the Rules .
K. Kaushal, Senior Deputy Advocate General for the State of Punjab and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent.
the information received by the respondent was that during these interviews, the appellant instigated the persons who saw him, to companymit prejudicial activities.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, M. K. Ramamurthi and D. P. Singh, for the appeallant.
The learned Judge who heard the habeas companypus petition filed by the appellant, rejected both these Contentions.
Whilst the appellant was in jail custody, he was allowed to interview his friends and about nine persons interviewed him between 3rd November to the 19th November, 1962.
According to him, the S.P., Amritsar who was a near relative of the ruling Chief was also hostile to him.
These three affidavits were duly challenged by companynter affidavits made on behalf of the respondent, State of Punjab.
It was in one of these affidavits that the res pondent brought out the fact that the appellant had nine interviews in jail between the 3rd November to 19th November, 1962 and.
These Questions, the appellant alleged, revealed the naked companyruption of the ruling high ups.
October 11, 1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 26, 1963, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Misc.
It is on these additional grounds also that the appellant purported to challenge the validity of his detention before the Punjab High Court.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. The detenu Makhan Singh Tarsikka whose Habeas Corpus petition has been dismissed by the Punjab High Court, has brought this appeal before us by special leave.
The appellant further alleged that the Jandiala Police were enraged by the fact that at his instance the Punjab High Court bad appointed the Sessions Judge at Amritsar to hold an inquiry in village Ramana Chak affairs.
The detention order had stated that the appellant was detained because he was found to be indulging in activities prejudicial to the Defence of India and Civil Defence by making propaganda against joining the armed and civil defence forces and by urging people number to companytribute to the National Defence Fund.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On the 1st November, 1962, the appellant was transferred to judicial custody of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar.
In pursuance of the investigation which companymenced on receipt of the said F.I.R., the appellant was arrested on the 25th October, 1962.
It appears that on the 22nd October, 1962, F.I.R., was filed at the Police Station, Jandiala, alleging that offences under sections 307, 324, 364 and 367 I.P.C. had been companymitted by certain persons including the appellant.
The order added that having regard to his activities, it was thought necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from carrying on the said prejudicial activities.
On the 26th October, 1962, Emergency was declared by the President.
This order was served on the appelant on the 21st November, 1962 and it appears he was removed to the jail at Hissar.
On the 30th January, 1963, he was brought back to Amritsar, and on the 9th February 1963 he filed the present writ petition.
On the 4th March, 1963, the appellant made an additional affidavit in which be urged that the fact that the depone it was in companyfinement before the declaration of emergency on the 26th October, 1962 and the Chinese invasion, clearly showed that the allegations against the deponent were false and companycocted.
80 of 1963.
In his petition which was filed by the appellant, the main allegation which he made in challenging the validity of his detention was that the grounds set up in the order of detention were very vague, companycocted and totally false.
186 of 1963.
He referred to several Starred Questions of which lie had given numberice in the Punjab Legislative Assembly to show that the ruling high ups were angry with him.
