The detenu in this case is Khawaja Muhammad Iqbal. He was ordered, to be detained by order dated 13th of October 1973, passed by the Home Secretary for a period of two months under rule 32, sub-rule (1), clause (b) read with rule 213 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Multan, was directed to keep the detenu in his custody. -On 12th of December 1973, another order (Annexure `B') was passed by the Home Secretary under section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order, Ordinance, 1960, directing the detention of the detenu for a period of three months from the date of the said order with a view to prevent him from acting do a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the maintenance of public order. This order was rescinded presumably on 12th of January 1974, by the Secretary to the Home Department with effect from the date of the -service of this order on the detenu. A copy among others, was endorsed to the Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore, with two spare copies, one of which was to be served on the detenu. The detenu was admittedly in Multan Jail on the date this order was passed. He was brought to Lahore District Jail on 15th of January 1974. The order of rescission was served on him on the above date. He was released from jail on the same day but was brought back in the afternoon at 3 p.m. By S. I. Muhammad Aslam on the basis .Of an order of detention passed by Mr. Pervez Masud, District Magistrate, Lahore, on 10th or 11th of January 1974, directing his detention for a period of one month under section 26 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, on the ground that he had been indulging in smuggling and if not detained, was likely to continue so indulging which act according to the detaining authority was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detenu was received in the first instance as also after his re- arrest by Agha Sajjad Raza, Assistant Superintendent of District Jail, Lahore.
2. The detenu was produced in this Court and he made a statement denying that he was ever released from jail, or any fresh order of deten--petition or a copy of the grounds of detention had ever been served upon him. I also recorded the statement of S. I. Muhammad Aslam who stated that he had arrested the detenu on 15th of January 1974, outside the District Jail and had served a copy of the warrant as well as the copy of the grounds on him after obtaining his signatures.
Copies purporting to have been signed by the detenu were placed on the record. The detenu, accord--ing to this police officer put both the documents in his pocket. He was then brought to Jail by the same police officer-and produced before the Assistant Superintendent of Jail: This latter officer was also examined in Court and he said the only a sum of Rs. 59 was recovered from the detenu and no other paper or document was found on his person. This would mean that the assertion of the Sub-Inspector that he had handed over a copy of the warrant as well as the grounds of detention to the detenu, is not correct. The detenu does not appear to be particularly a literate person as he has been thumb-marking a number of documents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the preliminary hearing raised a number of questions, inter alia, urging that under Article 10, clause (4) of the Constitution it was imperative on the Government to have produced the detenu before a Review Board within a period of one month. He also said that the successive orders of detention were passed mala fide and without any valid ground. It was also urged that the detenu was admittedly in Multan Jail when the fresh order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Lahore and in view of the fact that the detenu was at that time beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the said officer, the order was, vitiated for lack of jurisdiction.
4. In view of the fact that the detenu does not appear to have been served with the fresh order of detention or the grounds therefor, the matter now falls within a very short compass. Under subsection (6) of section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance of 1960, the authority making an order of detention is under an obligation to communi--cate the grounds of detention to the detenu not later than fifteen days from the date of detention, and has to inform him that he is at liberty to make a representation to the Government against the order of detention) and has further to afford him an earliest opportunity to do so. There is ample authority for the proposition that if the grounds of detention' are not communicated to the detenu within a reasonable time, the detention is rendered illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited Muhammad Anwar v. Government of East Pakistan (PLD 1963 Lah. 109a nd Qazi Masud Gul v.
Government' of West Pakistan (PLD 1969 Pesh. 50
5. In view of the evidence recorded by me the assertion of the Sub---Inspector Muhammad Aslam that he had delivered a copy of the warrant as. Well as the grounds of detention to the detenu has not been borne out. But even if this assertion had been proved to be correct, I would have been disposed to think that the intention of the law had not been carried out. The mechanical delivery of a detention order or the grounds of detention to a detenu without there being any evidence of the compliance with rest of the conditions mentioned in subsection (6) of section 3 of the Ordinance, will in my opinion fail to fulfil the object of law. The grounds have not only to be delivered to the detenu but to be communicated to him. It is a question of fact in each case whether or not the grounds have been communicated to a detenu. I may, however, observe that the word `communicate' is quite comprehensive. It carries with it the meanings of imparting news or information. It also means intercourse which word would indicate imparta--petition of information etc. On one side and reception and understanding on the other. The burden is on the State to show that grounds were communicated to the detenu. This burden has not been discharged. The detention becomes illegal as held in Gazi Masud Gul `v. Government of West Pakistan referred to above.
6. I, therefore, find that the confinement of the detenu in District. Jail, Lahore, is illegal and I direct that he should be set at liberty unless he: is lawfully required to be detained in some other case.