AJAIB SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 845 · Decided: 02-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AJAIB SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
February 2, 1965 
B [K. SuBBA RAO, K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH 
AND S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
J..11fmc1 of India A.ct, 1962 (A.ct 51 of 1962), s. 3(2)(15)(i)-
De/mc• of India Rule., 1962 r. 30A.-Power of Detention-Exercise--
By whom. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (A.ct 5 o/ 1898), n. 
10(1), 
C 
10(2) & ll~dditional District Magistrate-/n¥tsted with powers under 
s. 10(2)-Whether District Magistrate-Officer Incharge 
of District 
Magistrate's Office-But absence of Appointment under s. 10(1)-I/ 
District Magistrate. 
The Additional District Magistrate of Amritsar who was invested 
with the powers of a District Maptrate under s. 10(2) of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 
1898 was under instructioo& from the State 
Government in charge of the office of the District Magistrate, when the 
D 
District Magistrate was transferred. 
No order appointing him aa Dis-
trict Magistrate as required by s. 10( 1) of the 
Code was 
however 
passed. During the period he was in charge of the office of the District 
Magistrate he passed an order detaining the appellant under r. 30(1)(b) 
of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. In appeal by special leave from 
Punjab High Court, it was contended by the appellant, Iha~ in the absence 
of an order under a. 10(1) of the Code the Additional District Map 
E 
trate could n<>i be the District Magistrate for the purpose of passing an 
order of detention under Defence of India Act and the Rules, and conse-
quently the order Qf detention passed by him was without authority and 
liable to be set aside. 
HELD : The order of detention was not in accordance with the 
Defence of India Act and Rules and must be set aside, as be was not 
then the District Magistrate, but only an Additional District Magistrate. 
F 
[852 FJ 
The Defence of India Act and the Rules show unmistakably that 
the powers of detention can only be exercised by the State Government 
or an officer or authority to whom it might be delegated but who shall 
in no case be lower in rank than a District Magistrate. An Additional 
Dmrict Magistrate is below the rank of a District Magistrate. (849 E-F; 
851 H-852 A] 
G 
Even if an Additional Di.strict Magistrate hid been appointed with 
all the powexs under the Code and also under any other law for the time 
being in force, be was still not the District Magistrate unless the Govern-
ment appointed him as such under s. 10(1) of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure. [850 D-E) 
Even if an officer was exercising the powers of the District Magia-
trate on there being a vacancy in the office of the District Magistrate he 
H 
was still not the District Magistrate until be was appointed as such under 
s. 10(1) of the Cede of Criminal Procedure._ [850 F-0] 
The instructions could not take the place of a notification under 
s. 10(1) of the Code. (851 C-D] 
846 
SUPllBMB COUllT llBPOR.TS 
[1965) 2 S.C.R. 
CllIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
A 
252 of 1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
July 30, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Miscella-
neous No. 742 of 1962. 
M. C. Setalvad, and Naunit Lal, for the appellant. 
I. N. Kaushal, Advocate-General for the State of Punjab and 
R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Wanchoo J. 
This appeal by special leave from the judgment C 
of the Punjab High Court was heard on January 20, 1965. We 
then pronounced a short order allowing the appeal and directing 
the release of the detenu and indicated that reasons would follow 
later. We now proceed to give the reasons. 
fl' 
The appellant was detained under r. 30 (I) (b) of the Defence D 
of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by an order 
passed by Shri Lall Singh on June 30, 1964. 
That order was 
passed by Shri Lall Singh as District Magistrate of Amritsar. The 
only point that has been urged before us on behalf of the detenu 
is that Shri Lall Singh was not the District Magistrate of Amritsar 
on June 30, 1964 and therefore he had no power to pass the order E 
of detention under the Defence of India Act, No. 51 of 1962, 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules. 
It is necessary to set out certain facts with respect to the posi-
tion Shri Lall Singh was occupying on June· 30, 1964 when the 
order of detention was passed. It appears that Shri P. N. Bhalla 
y 
was the District Magistrate of Amritsar in April 1964. He was 
ordered to be transferred to th

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