P L D 1969 Dacca 339 (PLP)

ABDUL MOUDUD, J.‑In this case a Rule nisi in the nature of a habeas corpus under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 98 of the Constitution was issued calling upon the opposite‑parties to show cause why the detenu, K. M. Obaidur Rehman, who is alleged to have been illegally and improperly detained in Dacca Central Jail should not be brought before this Court and be dealt with in accordance with law. A copy of this Rule was also served on the learned Advocate‑General. The case came up for hearing on 10‑11‑67 when Mr. S. M. Abbas appearing for the State submitted that there was every chance of the detention order being withdrawn and for defecting that he prayed for a fortnight's adjournment. The adjournment was granted with the concurrence of the other party. The case came up for hearing again on 17‑11‑67 when a further adjourn ment was prayed for by Mr. Abbas and his prayer at that time was also allowed. It has been averred on behalf of the detenu, Obaidur Rehman, that he is a law‑abiding citizen of Pakistan and is an M. A. of the University of Dacca and completed his L.L.B. Course of the said University. While a student the detenu was the General Secretary of the Dacca University Central Students Union and participated in various social activities. The detenu was serving as unit manager of Muslim Insurance Company since 1965 and vas earning more than Rs. 1,000 per mensem, He was also the Social and Cultural Secretary of the East Pakistan Awami League since March 1966, and it was asserted that this East Pakistan Awami League is a powerful and con stitutional Political party legally functioning as a strong opposi tion party to the party in power. On the night of 1‑6‑66 the detenu was taken into custody from his residence at 291, Elephant Road, Dacca by force of an order purported to have been issued under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca, under section 32 (1) (b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965 and thereafter he is being detained at the Dacca Central Tail by issuance of an order periodically at the expiry of every three months, the last order being dated 23‑8‑

67. The petitioner has submitted the following order: "Government of East Pakistan, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca. Order No. 1280/C, dated, Dacca, the 28th November 1966. Whereas the person known as Mr. K. M. Obaidur Rehman, son of late K. M. Atiqur Rehman of Lashkardia, P. S. Nagar kanda, District Faridpur and of 291, Elephant Road, P. S. Lalbagh, Dacca, detained in the Dacca Central Jail under Order No. 939‑C., dated 27‑8‑66; And whereas having further considered the materials against the said person, I. M. K. Anwar the Deputy Commissioner of Dacca District, am satisfied that with a view to preventing the said Mr. K. M. Obaidur Rehman from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order, the maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country and the maintenance of essential supplies and services, it is necessary to make the following order:‑ Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub‑rule (1) of rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965, delegated to me by the Government of East Pakistan Notification No. 115‑Poll (11), dated 13‑9‑65, 1, M. K. Anwar, Deputy Commissioner, Dacca District do hereby direct:‑ (a) that the order Mr. K. M. Obaidur Rehman shall be detained for a period of three (3) months from the date of service of this order, (b) that subject to the provisions of clause (a) of this paragraph the said person shall continue to be detained in the Dacca Central Jail. (Sd.) M. K. Anwar, 28‑11‑66 Deputy Commissioner, Dacca District." It is averred that the detenu did never indulge in any activity prejudicial to the security or public safety, public interest 810 maintenance of the peaceful conditions in the country, which could justify his arrest under the Rules. The detention order was made in a very stereotyped manner without having any materials therefore and it was male fide inasmuch as there was no satisfaction of the detaining authority on any pre‑existing materials justifying action under rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. On such grounds it was the prayer that the Rule nisi be made absolute and the detenu be released. Mr. M. K. Anwar, Deputy Commissioner, Dacca has swore to a counter‑affidavit on behalf of the opposition on 4‑4‑67 and it was stated in particular in paragraph 4 that though the detenu was an officer of tile Muslim Insurance Company, he middled deeply in subversive activities. In this paragraph there is the mention of two specific occasions dated 3‑8‑65 and 23‑5‑66 wherein the detenu is asserted to have indulged in subversive activities and that on a consideration of the materials thereof the then Deputy Commissioner, Mr. P. A. Nazir, being satisfied that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the public order, the maintenance of peaceful condition in the country and the maintenance of essential services and supplies and further being satisfied that with a view to preventing him from acting in the aforesaid prejudicial manner the detention of the detenu was necessary and, accordingly on 1‑6‑66 an order was made by him under rule 32 (1) (6) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. It is further stated that in paragraph 6 that the deponent on this affidavit Mr. M. K. Anwar, had personally examined, on 27‑8‑66, the records of the detenu and upon such examination was satisfied about the prejudicial conduct of the detenu and that inasmuch as normal condition was not restored in the country he was further satisfied that further detention of the detenu was necessary and accordingly he made an order on 27‑8‑66 and thereafter successively on the expiry periodically of every three months he has been issuing such orders against the detenu. In paragraph 8 it was averred that there was sufficient material to show that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and the maintenance of public order and the peaceful condition in the country and the maintenance of essential supplies and services and with a view to preventing hire from so doing, his detention was necessary. Mr. Sirajul Haq, the learned Advocate fur the detenu did not find any fault with the detention order, which has been quoted in extenso above. Ha, however, contended that there was no material worthy enough for clamping an order under rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules upon the detenu and that the action taken in this case was mala fade and liable to be set aside. The present Deputy Commissioner, in paragraph 4 his affidavit, has specifically stated as follows:‑ "On 3‑8‑65, while addressing the Annual Conference of the workers of the Kulaura Branch of the East Pakistan Students League, at Kulaura, he held out a warning that if the disparity between the two wings of Pakistan is toot removed, with immediate effect, they would launch a movement to mobilise public opinion with a view to secede East Pakistan from West Pakistan. Referring to the Kashmir issue, he opined that it would remain an independent State. The detenu on 23‑5‑66, met Mr. Mahbubul Huq the leader of the East Pakistan Railway's Employees League and requested him to make the Railway Employees join the general strike which was declared by the East Pakistan Awami League in connec tion with the observance of Protest Day (obviously 7‑6‑66)." In support of the first allegation dared 3‑8‑65, the Government have produced before us a weekly secret report of the Sylhet District for the week ending on 5‑8‑65 forwarded to the Special Police Establishment, East Pakistan, Dacca under the signature of the Superintendent, D. S. B, Sylhet. And regarding the statement dated 23‑5‑56, the Government have produced before us a statement dated 27‑5‑65 under the signature of S. A. Khan, Special Superintendent of Police, East Pakistan, Dacca. Mr. Serajul Huq, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before us that such copies of the statements as produced by the Government have got no evidenciary value to be treated as a material far consideration in the instant case. Mr. Abdul Malek, the learned Advocate for the State submitted that these are the statements kept by the Government in its official record in the ordinary course of business and as such they are acceptable for consideration in this case. Our considered view is that the contention raised by Mr. Huq is not tenable. In the famous case of Malik Ghulam Jilani and others v. The Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1967 S C 373), Cornelius, C. J. while delivering judgment observed as follows:‑‑‑ "On the same reasoning, it must follow that actions by other and perhaps higher authorities, under rule 32, like all other actions relatable tea the power delineated in clause (x) afore said, are equally susceptible of judicial review, subject, of course to the right of the State to claim privilege in respect of secret information, and the Court's power to hold proceedings in camera" (underlined' by us). This, obviously shows that the right of the State to claim privilege in respect of secret information can never be denied. Such a right is also acknowledged under section 125 of the Evidence Act and a Police Officer cannot be compelled to say whence he has got any information as to the commission of an offence. These are the reports coming from the archives of the Govern ment kept in the Special Branch of the Police and are duly authenticated by tile Superintendent of Police forwarding such information to the Headquarters. As to the authority and authenticity of the information coming from the source they should come ordinarily in the course of official duty there could not be any manner of doubt in the instant case. Under section 35 of the Evidence Act, "An entry in any special or other official book, register or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by public servant in the discharge of his official duty or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or record is kept is itself a relevant fact." With regard to official reports the matter came up for consideration in the case of Rajah Muttu Ramlinga Setupati v. Perianayagum Pillai (1 I A 209), and their Lordships of the Privy Council observed as follows:‑ "When these reports express opinions on the private rights of parties such opinions are not to b. regarded as having judicial authority car force. Brit being the reports of public officers made in the course of duty, and under statutable authority, they are entitled to great consideration so far as they supply information of official proceedings." In view of such Rule of law we have got no doubt in our minds that the official reports that have been produced in the install case before us are worth consideration whether they would constitute sufficient materials for making an order under rule 32 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. The report regarding the activities of the detenu dated 3‑8‑65 in specific, clear and extensive and on a mere perusal of the same there can be no doubt in the mind of an ordinary man that such utterances would invariably amount to subversive activities and activities prejudicial to the integrity and security of the State established by law. Regarding the incident dated 23‑5‑66, on a perusal of the report, it is clear that this detenu who was an adept in the art of such activities while prosecuting his studies in the University met Mr. Mahbubul Huq, the leader of East Pakistan Railway Employees' League on 23‑5‑66 with a view to make an attempt to induce the Railway workers to join the general strike declared by the East Pakistan Awami League in connection with the observance of Protest Day with the motive to paralyse the traffic of the whole of the Province. On an anxious consideration of such materials, we do think that the Deputy Commissioner, who clamped the impugned order upon the detenu was rightly satisfied and we find no reason to interfere. In the result, the Rule is discharged. BAQUER, J:‑I agree. Rule discharged.