Before R. K. M. Saker, J. C.

FAZAL AHMAD-Petitioner
versus
CROWN-Respondent

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 1950 under S.491 Criminal Procedure Code, decided on 16th May 1950.
(a) Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation (I of 1947) (as amended by Regulation 1 of 1949), S. 3 (5)-Grounds of deten¬tion-Disclosure of-Privileged-Proof of wrongful detention¬ Onus on detenu.
It is not for a Court of law to demand the disclosure of information, evidence or documents if this privilege was claimed as being against the public interest to disclose either the contents of such evidence or the source from which information was obtained.
The entire onus of disproving or discrediting the detention order falls upon the petitioner.
The maxim, ” omnia acta rite esse Praesumuntur ” applies
,{‘to orders under Security or Emergency Regulation and if the order was either proved or admitted, it must be taken, prima facie, that is, until the contrary is proved, to have been properly made.
Liversidge v. Sir John Anderson; Green v. Secretary of State for Home affairs A. I. R. 1949 Nagpur 50-53.
The case therefore is of an unusual character to the extent that not only does the petitioner profess not to know the reasons -why he has been detained but, having admitted privilege, the Court is itself unaware of the grounds on which the petitioner has
:been detained.
(b) Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation (I of 1917), Chapter II-” Emergency Powers “-Meaning of-Whether (declaration of State of “emergency ” necessary before exercise of Powers.
As a rule a Regulation is not issued for a specific period ; that rule is normally applicable to Ordinances. The words ” Emergency Powers ” appearing under Chapter II mean not that these powers could not only he used in a state of emer¬gency but that they are powers which are distinguishable from powers under other enactments and are intended to meet circumstances specially catered for by the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation.
(c) Baluchistan Regulation (I of 1949) amending Regulation (I of 1947), para. 2, second proviso-Order extending period of detention-Validity begins from actual date of order irrespective of the date of communication to subordinate execu¬tive officer.
The material date is the actual date of the order and not any endorsement conveying the gist or the order of a copy of it to any subordinate executive officer.
Under Government practice endorsements conveying orders do not necessarily follow immediately the passing of such orders, In this case the Secretary to the Chief Commissioner conveyed this order in writing to the jail Superintendent and to other officers. The fact that he did so some 18 (lays later appears
to be immaterial.
(d) Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation (I of 1947), S. 3- Sufficiency of evidence-Matter for authority ordering detention-Not for inquiry by Court.
The sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence on the basis of which a person is detained is matter for the authority order¬ing detention under section 3 of the Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation to decide. It is not a matter which can be scrutinized or inquired into by a Court of law. All that the Court has to do is to satisfy itself on the question that the order complained of was passed after full care and caution and in conformity with the powers conferred by the Regulation.
P, L. D. 1949 Lahore 55 rel.
e) Baluchistan Public Safety Regulation (I of 1947), (as amended by Regulation I of 1949), S. 3-Whether police could search house of suspect or question him.
It would not be illegal for the Police, not only to carry out a search of the house of a suspect at the time or shortly after he was detained, but also, if necessary, question him while in jail.
A. I. R. 1945 Nagpur 17 ref. Yahya Bakhtiar, for Petitioner. Public Prosecutor, for Crown.