The All India Reporter 1937 - Rangoon Section with parallel references to (1) 1937 Rangoon Law Reports (2) 38 Criminal Law Journal (3) 166 to 172 Indian Cases Citation: A.I.R. 1937 Rangoon

(1) of S. 12 of this Act as originally enacted shall be deem- ed to affect the validity or duration of any such order. ” The effect of this section was to continue the order of detention under which the applicant was detained up to the commencement of the amend- ing Act provided of course the order was a valid order at the date of the commencement. [...] a) of S. 12 of the amending Act was not to be deemed to be invalid as having continued the detention for more than one year It was the contention of the applicant that the order of detention which was in force at the time of the commencement of the amending Act was not a valid order and for that reason as well as for certain other reasons to be detailed below there is no valid order of detention a [...] But the principal question before this Court was not the validity of the order under which the applicant was being detained but the validity of the applicant’s detention at the time of the disposal of his application the question of the validity of the order under which the appli. [...] (b) as an order made under s. 3 and consequently thefailure to detain a detenue in a place determined in accordance with the provisions of S. 4 of the original Act or the Act as amended would not render the detention order that is the order passed under S. 3 an invalid order It is contend- ed however on behalf of the applicant that the place of a detention is a part and parcel of the order of det [...] [7] Now whether the order of detention is rendered vague or not because of the failure of the detaining authority to mention in the order the period of detention the argument that it is rendered vague because of the failure to mention in it the place of detention cannot stand.