Rex vs Amir Hassan

Kania, C.J.—I have read the judgment prepared by Mahajan J. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the judgment and have nothing

to add.

Mahajan, J.

Amir Hassan, son of Noorul Hasan, of Moradabad was detained under an order of the District Magistrate of Moradabad under Section 3(a),

U.P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947, for a period of fifteen days. Subsequently his detention was extended to a period of

six months under another order issued by the Governor of the United Provinces. On an application presented under Section 491, Criminal P.C.,

his detention was held illegal by the High Court of Allahabad and it was ordered that he be set at liberty. A certificate was granted under Section

205(1), Government of India Act, 1935, and this appeal has-been filed on the basis of the certificate.

The grounds for detention stated under Section 5 of the Act were these:

That you are the manager of a hotel known as the Coronation Hotel, situated on the Station Road, Moradabad. I have reliable information to

show that you have been using the premises of the said hotel as & meeting place for agents of Hyderabad in order to prepare plans for action likely

to be prejudicial to the safety of the Indian Union. It has been known that such agents belonging to the district of Aligarh and the State of Rampur

have been visiting you at this hotel very often.

That you were also a close associate of one Azmai who was dealing in the sale of Pakistan coins for the collection of funds. You actually

allowed Azmat to use your hotel to carry out his nefarious activities. There is also information to show that yon are actively engaged in the

collection of secret funds to assist Hyderabad in event of a possible conflict with the Indian Union in the ostensible purpose of collecting funds for

Muslim orphanages.

That, in spite of the fact that you were detained in the month of February last on account of your prejudicial activities and were released only on

your giving an undertaking to remain loyal to the Indian Union, you have not honoured the undertaking.

That your detention is absolutely necessary in the interests of public peace and communal amity and in order to prevent you from becoming a

grave menace to'' public safety and communal harmony.

The High Court held that it had not been; shown that the first three grounds were connected with the maintenance of public order and that it

could not be inferred that the sale of Pakistan coins and collections of funds for Hyderabad or the holding of meetings at the Coronation Hotel

were likely to lead to the disturbance of public order. The fourth ground was held to be vague and indefinite.

For the reasons stated in our judgment in Rex v. Abdul Majid A.I.R. (86) 1949 P.C. 103, no question of the construction of the Constitution

Act arises in this case also. I cannot, however, subscribe to the view expressed by the learned Judge that the grounds given were not likely to lead

to disturbances of public order. Acts and propaganda of the character described in the grounds mentioned above may lead to disturbances of

public order. Be that as it may, the appeal fails as no question as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935, arises. There are also

no sufficient grounds to allow the appellant at this stage to file a petition to urge other grounds of appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 205,

Government of India Act, 1935.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Fazl Ali, J.

I agree.

Patanjali Sastri, J.

I agree.

B.K. Mukherjea, J.

I agree.