998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1958]
1957 and that, accordingly, the tenant acquired the rights
_Asa Ram_ of a hereditary tenant. That decision has no applicav. tion when the lease is, as held by us, not a prudent
## Ram KaU transaction binding on the mortgagors. In this view,
_venkatarama_ the questions raised by Mr. Sinha on the construction
## Aiyar J. of s. 30(6) ands. 11 of the Act ands. 15 of the Agra
Tenancy Act, 1926, do not arise for decision.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the decree
passed by the Board is set aside, and that of the Revenue Officer, Meerut affirmed by the Commissioner,
restored. The respondents will pay the costs of the
appellants throughout, including the costs of the
remand.
_Appeal allowed._
1957
_**November,**_ **25.**
# _v._
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
(S. R. DAS C. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, S. K. DAS,
## GAJENDRAGADKAR and A. K. SARKAR JJ.)
_Preventive_ - _Detention-Failure_ _of_ _the Advisory Board_
## to submit its report within time-Effect-Detenu, if must
be set _at liberty-Preventive Detention_ _Act_ (No. _IV_ of
1950), _SS._ 10, 11.
Submission of its report by the Advisory Board under
s. 10 of the Preventive Detention Act within the time prescribed by that section is of the utmost importance to the
detenu and if the Board fails to do so any further detention beyond that period becomes unlawful.
Consequently, where the case of the detenu was tbat
the.Advisory Board had not submitted its report within ten
weeks of his detention and his detention thereafter had,
therefore, become illegal and no attempt was made on
behalf of the Government to controvert that case in the
counter-affidavits filed on its behalf, the detenu must be
set at liberty.
CHOUDHURY DHARAM SINGH RATHI
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 135 of 1957
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in
the nature of _habeas_ corpus).
## S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 999
## N. C. Chatter.jee and Naunit Lal for the petitioner. 1?57 N. S. Bindra and T. · M. Sen, for the respondents. Choudhury Dltaram
- . • - _Singh Rathi_
## 1957. November 25. The followmg Judgment of v. the Court was delivered by The State of
## DAS, C. J.-This is an application for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner who was detained by an order made by the District Magis- trate,· Karna! under s. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act on the August 18, 1957, and which was approved by the State Government on August 29, 1957. In para lO(xii) of his petition the petitioner stated that he made representations before the Advisory Board and personally appeared twice before it, but the Board had not yet passed any order and he con• tends that his detention has become .illegal and bad. Under s. 10 of the Preventive Detention Act, the Advisory Board is enjoined, after going .through the procedure therein laid down; to make its report to the State Government within ten weeks from the date of the detention. On the report being ·made the State Government has to take steps under s. 11 of the Act.
# If the report is against the detention the Government
## has no option but must release the detenu forthwith. In such a case the delay in the submission of the report may result in prolonging the detention beyond the period signified by the expression "forthwith" occurring ins. 11 read withs. 10. On the other hand if the report approves of the detention the Govern- ment may but is not bound to continue the detention and if it does decide to continue the detention, it has to fix the period of such detention. In this case also the delay in the submission of the report deprives the detenu of the advantage of a fresh decision by the State Government about the continuation of nis deten- tion. It, therefore, follows . that in either case the making of the report within the time prescribed by law is of the utmost importance to the detenu and the failure to make the report in time may quite conceiv- ably have the effect of unlawfully prolonging the detention and, therefore, after the expiry of the ten
_Punjab_
_Das C.J._
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958]
1957 weeks the detenu may well complain that he has been
_Choudhury_ Dharamdeprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in
_Singh Rathl_ accordance with procedure established by law. The
v.,, ten weeks' time within which the report of the Advi_Th• State Punjab_ _o,_ sory B oar d was o e t b fil e d . m th' rs case expire on . d
October 27; 1957. This Petition was filed on Novem## Das C.J. ber 8, 1957. The detenu may well complain that on
and from October 28, 1957, his detention has become
illegal and bad and that, in substance, is what he has
said in para. lO(xii) of his petition.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
has submitted that there is no allegation in the petition that the Board has not submitted its report and
## that all that has been said is that the Board has not
made any order. Says learned counsel that if the
petitioner had stated that the Board had not submitted
its report the State Government could then be expected to deal with that allegation. Under s. 10 of the
Act the Board has no power to make any order to continue or discontinue the detention, but is only under a
duty to submit its report to the State Government. In
this context, therefore, a plain reading of para. 10
(xii) indicates that the grievance of the petitioner, in
substance, is that the Board has not submitted its report within the prescribed period and that, therefore,
his detention has become illegal. Learned counsel appearing for the State wanted time to ascertain whether
the report had been submitted within the time. We
do not think in the circumstances of this case any adjournment should be given. The allegation was definitely made in the petition that the Board had not
done its duty and the detention was on that account
characterised as illegal and bad but this paragraph
## has not at all been dealt with in either of the two affidavits in opposition that have been filed. There
was no scope for any misunderstanding about the
petitioner's case. In these circumstances, we are of
opinion that no good reason has been shown way any
adjournment should be granted.
In the view we have taken on the effect of the noncompliance with the procedure laid down in s. 10 of
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1001
the Act, it is not necessary for us to go into the other 1957
points raised in the petition. We, therefore, direct _Choudhury Dharam_
that a writ be issued as prayed for and the petitioner _Singh Rathi_
be set at liberty forthwith. v.
_The State_ _of_
_Punjab_
_Wrjt_ issued.
_Petitioner_ set _at_ _Hberty._
INDU BHUSAN ·CHATTERJEE
_'V._
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
## (B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and J. L. KAPUR JJ.)
_Pu.bLic_ _servant-Prosecution-Sanction-Essentials_ _of a_
_valid sanction-Prevention of Corruption Act,_ 1947 (2 _of_
1947), _ss._ 5 (2), _6-Indian_ _Penal_ Code _(Act_ 45 _of_ 1860),
s. 161.
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted under
s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1917, and under
s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of accepting
a sum of Rs. 100 as illegal gratification. It was contended
for the appellant that the conviction was bad on the ground
that the sanction for his prosecution was not valid because
the officer competent to sanction the prosecution (1) had
not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the
case but merely perused the draft prepared by the Police
and (2) did not investigate the truth of the offence. The
evidence, however, showed that he went through all ihe
papers placed before him which gave him the necessary
material upon which he decided that it was necessary in
the ends of justice to accord his sanction ~
_Held,_ that the essentials of a valid sanction were present
in the case and that the conviction was valid.
_Goku.lchand Dwarkadas Morarka_ v. _The King,_ (1948)
L.R. 75 I.A. 30, referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 18 of 1955.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 1, 1954, of the Calcutta High Court in 'Criminal
Appeal No. 322 of 1953, arising out of the judgment
L!Sup. Court/61-8
_Das_ _C.J._
1957.
_November,_ 26.
