ABDUL JABAR BUTT versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 13-11-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
51 
present case, because they have no bearing 
on 
the 
questions which we have to consider in this case. 
For the reasons given above, we hold that the 
Industrial Tribunal came to the correct decision 
that 
the respondents employed in the electricity department 
of the Baroda Municipality w<;re not entitled to the 
bonus claimed, and the Labour Appeliate Tribunal 
came to an erroneous decision on that question in its 
order d::ited November 23, 1955. W c accordingly allow 
the appeal and set aside the order of 
the 
Labour 
Appellate 
Tribunal. 
In 
the 
circumstances 
of 
this 
case, we direct that the parties \Viii bear their own 
costs throughout. 
Appeal allowed. 
ABDUL JABAR BUTT 
ti. 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 
(with connected petition) 
(S. 
R. 
DAS, C.J., 
BHAGWATI, 
VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR. 
B. P. SINHA and S. K. D11.s, JJ.) 
Preventive Detention-Legality-Time prescribed for communi-
cating grounds of detention to the dett•nue-·As soon as may be', 
Meaning of-Declaration enabling· withholding of such mmm1111ica-
tion, if must be made by Government 1,efore expiry of ..-11<.'1 time-
/ammu and Kashmir Preventive Dcte11tio11 Act (JV of Sam hut '21!1 l), 
s. 8(1 ), Proviso. 
The two petitioners were detained under s. 3( I) of the Jam mu 
and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act on April 26, I<)';\ with a 
view to preventing them from acting in a manner prcjudicinl to 
the security of the State. 
No grounds were communicated to 
them under s. 8( I) of the Act and no declarations """e made 
under the proviso of that section. 
The petitioners applied to the 
High Court under s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 
•foring the pendency of those applications, on June 30, 1956, 
declarations under the proviso were made by the Government to 
the effect that it would be against the public interest to communi-
cate to the petitioners the. grounds on which the orders of detention 
~-
had been made against them. On July 28, 1956, the High Court 
rejected 
the 
applications. 
The 
cases 
of 
the 
petitioners were 
Baroda Borouglr . 
Municipalitp 
v. 
Its Workmen 
S. K. Das]. 
November 
13 
19!;6 
Abdul Jabar 
Butt 
v. 
Gtau of Jammu 
& Kt11hmir 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1957] 
reviewed by the Government under s. 14(2) of the Act in consulta-
tion with a person nominated for that purpose on June 4, 1956, 
and it was satisfied that the petitioners should continue to be 
detained and, accordingly, passed orders to that effect under s. 14 
of the Act on September 26, 1956. 
The question was whether 
the declarations were made within the_ time prescribed by s. 8( 1) 
of the Act for comn1unicating the grounds of detention and, if not, 
whether the petitioners had 'been lawfully detained. 
Held, that the expression 'as soon as may be' in sub-s. (I) 
of s. 8 of the Ja1nmu and Kashn1ir Preventive 
Detention Act, 
whereby the Act prescribed the time within which the Govern-
1nent must comn1unicate to the detenue the grounds 
of 
his 
detention, meant within .a reasonable time, with the understanding 
to do the act \vithin the shortest possible tin1ei from the date of 
detention. 
King's Old Country, Ltd. v. Liquid Carbonic Can. Corpn. Ltd. 
(1942) 2 W.W.R. 603, followed. 
Uiagar Singh v. The State of the Punjab, [1952] S.C.R. 756 and 
Keshab Nilkanth foglekar v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater 
Bombay, Petition No. 602 of 1956, decided on September 17, 1956, 
referred to. 
Although it might not be possible in many cases to con1pute 
the span of time thus indicated by hours, days or months, what 
was possible and the Court had to do in the facts and circum· 
stances of each particular case, was to find whether the act was or 
was not done within the time which was reasonably convenient 
or reasonably requisite. 
The proviso to the sulrsection clearly implied that the power 
it vested in the Government to exclude from the operation of the 
sub·section a:rtain class of 
detenues by 
making the required 
declaration, must be exercised and such declaration made before 
the exi)iry of the time prescribed by the sub.section for communi· 
eating to the detenuc the grounds on which the detention order 
against him had been made. 
Hissam-VJ-Din Battdy and Others v. The State, A.LR. 1955 
J. & K. 7, overruled. 
Consequently, as in the instant cases the affidavits filed on 
behalf of the Government disclosed no particular cjrcumsrancc or 
reason why the declarations under the proviso could not have 
been ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.