SAHIB SINGH DUGAL versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 313 · Decided: 30-07-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
• 
c 
-
D 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
• 
SAHIB SINGH DUGAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
July 30, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.I., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HlDAYA• 
TULLAH, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, U.] 
Dt/tnce of India Rules, r. 30(1) (b)-Detentlon of person immediately 
after his discharge from a criminal case-Legallry-Such detention whether 
mala fide. 
The petitioner was arrested on December 6, 1964 for a11 offence under 
s. 3 of the Official Secrets Act. 
On March 11 the investigating officer 
made a report to the Magistrate that there was insufficient evidence to 
charge the accused, and thereupon the Magistrate discharged the petitioner. 
Immediately after the petitioner came out of the jail ho was served with 
an order under r. 30( I) (b) of the Defence of India Rules under which 
ho was to be detained in order to prevent him from acting in a manner 
prejudicial to the defence of India, public safety, and India's relations 
with foreign powers. He was then arrested and sent to jail in accordance 
with the further orders of the Government of India under r. 30( 4) of 
the Rules. 
In a petition under Art. 32 it was contended on behalf of 
tho petitioner that in view of this Court's decision in Rameshwar Shaw's 
case the detention order was illegal; it was also illegat. for the reason that 
in the circumstances of the case it was ma/a fide. 
HELD: (i) What was decided in Rameshwar Shaw's case was that when 
a peiliOll was already in jail and would continue in jail custody for an 
indefinite length of time it could not be postulated about him that if he 
was not detained he would act in a prejudicial manner. In the present 
case the petitioner was not to continue in jail indefinitely but on the other 
hand stood discharged in the criminal case. [316 G) 
It was further held in Rameshwar Shaw's C38e that the past activities 
on the basis of which detention order is passed against a person should 
ordinarily be proximate in time. 
In the present case the petitioner had 
been in jail only for three months and it could be said that the conduct of 
the petitioner before this period of three months was not proximate enough 
to justify an order of detention based on that conduct. [317 D} 
Rame•hwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan [1964) 4 S.C.R. 921 
distinguished. 
Smt. Godavarl Shamrao v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 
1128, referred to. 
(ii) It may very well be that the executive authorities felt that it was 
-
~ible to obtain a conviction for a particular offence under the 
Oflic1al Secrets Act; at the same timo they might reasonably have come 
to the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner which had been watch-
ed for oYer two years before the order of detention was passed were of 
such a nature as to justify the order of detention. From the mere fact 
that the authorities decided to drop the case under the Official Secrets Act 
and thereafter to order the detention of the petitioner, it cannot be in-
ferred that the order of detention was ma/a fide. (317 G-HJ 
314 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1966] l S.C.R. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 55 and 56 ot 
A 
1965. 
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the 
enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
R. Gopa/akrishnan, for the petitioners (in both the petitions). 
R. GanapaJh.v Iyer and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent (in 
both the petitions). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
II 
Wancboo, J. These two writ petitions under Art. 32 of the 
c 
·Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus raise common question> 
and will be dealt with together. 
We may set out the facts in ooe 
of the petitions (namely Petition 55) in order to highlight the 
points raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is unnecessary to relcr 
to the facts in the other petition as they are similar except th~t 
in the other case the original arrest took place on December <• 
D 
instead of December 8. 
Sahib Singh Dugal, petitioner, was employed in the Posts and 
Telegraph Directorate of the Central Government 
Ho was 
arrested on December 8, 1964 and put in jail as an under trial 
prisoner for an offence under s. 3 of the Official Secrets Act. 
E 
Various remands were taken up to March 11, 1965 in connection 
with the criminal case against the petitioner. 
It appears that 
besides Dugal, eight other persons were also involved in the case 
under s. 3 of the Official Secrets Act, including Jagdev Kumar 
Gupta petitioner in pe~ition No. 56 of 1965. On March 11, 
1965, th

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