Amarpal Singh vs State of Punjab and anr.

Ujagar Singh, J.

The District Magistrate, Ludhiana passed this detention order on 22.5.1987 against the petitioner, holding that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to detain him. It is further stated in the order that the District Magistrate was aware that at that time the petitioner was confined in District Jail, Nabha in different cases, but he was likely to indulge in prejudicial activities to maintenance of public peace and order in the event of his release from jail on bail or otherwise. The grounds of detention attached to the said detention order are stated in brief as under :

(i) That on 13.7.1985, at about 9.45 p.m., in the area of Sector 17, Chandigarh, the petitioner, along with his other associates, committed the theft of Fiat Car No. CHG 383, belonging to Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal, resident of Chandigarh. Thereupon case First Information Report No. 485 dated 13.7.1985, under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Central Police Station, Chandigarh;

(ii) That on 31.7.1985, at about 11.45 a.m., in the area of Civil Lines, Patiala, the petitioner, along with his other associates, who were in car No. DEC 2245, robbed Shri B.K. Sharma of Rs. 1,13,225.40 Murari Lal of Rs. 13,992.30; Chuni Lal of Rs. 18,818.05 and Vinod Kumar of Rs. 67,042.10 When Krishan Lal Saini tried to run away with the bag containing cash, one of the petitioner''s associates fired a pistol shot at him, as a result of which Krishan Lal Saini was injured and was also robbed of Rs. 52,241.30. All this happened in front of the office of the Income Tax Department, near Leela Bhawan, Patiala. The said person were officials of the said Department and were travelling a car PUV 7800. A case FIR No. 176 dated 31.7.1985 under Section 394, IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act was registered in police Station Civil Lines, Patiala. In this case the petitioner had been arrested and the challan presented in Court and he was facing trial in the Court; and

(iii) That on 20.9.1985 at about 3 p.m. in the area of village Sanaur, Inspector Paramjit Singh along with other police officials, was holding a Nakabandi. The petitioner came in a Fiat car No. PAM 2309. On suspicion, the car was stopped. From the personal search of the petitioner, one 32 bore revolver of China make along with 12 cartridges, was recovered. From the search of car, one brief case, containing of Rs. 21,000/, one dairy of Income Tax Department, some clothes and four vehicle number plates two of DEC 2245 and two of DEC 295 were recovered. In this connection, FIR No. 301 dated 20.9.1985, under Section 25, Arms Act was registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala and case FIR No. 303 dated 27.9.1985 was registered under Section 411, IPC at Police Station Sadar; Patiala on the statement of Dr. Pawan Kumar, owner of the car. Another case, FIR No. 485 dated 13.7.1985, under Section 379 IPC was registered at Police Station Central, Chandigarh, relating to the theft of the aforesaid Fiat car No. PAM 2399.

After mentioning the above grounds, the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, stating to be satisfied about the above said activities, passed the detention order with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in the aforesaid manner in future. The petitioner was informed about his right to make a representation in writing against the detention order and was asked to make such representation to the State government through the Superintendent Jail as soon as possible. The petitioner was further assured that his representation within the stipulated period would be submitted to the Advisory Board and in case his representation was received late, the same would not be considered by the Board.

The said detention order and the grounds of detention have been assailed through this petition on the following grounds :

(i) The grounds contained pertain to District Ludhiana and are not such as could have affected public peace and order in that district;

(ii) The grounds are not recognized by section 3 of the National Security Act;

(iii) The grounds, referred to in the grounds of detention, are simple cases, pertaining to law and order and offences of every day occurrence;

(iv) The grounds of detention are stale and nothing has been mentioned in the order as to how the same could be relevant or compelling for passing of the order when such a long interval of time had elapsed between the said occurrence and the detention order; and

(v) The detention has been passed in a mechanical way without application of mind; and

The petitioner has alleged that the District Magistrate passed the impugned order without application of mind; inasmuch as a direction is given to Senior Superintendent of Police. Ludhiana to lodge the petitioner in District Jail, Nabha, whereas the petitioner was already in District, Jail, Nabha and the order should have been directed to Superintendent jail to continue the custody of the petitioner there. It is also mentioned that particulars of different cases, showing the knowledge of the District Magistrate were not given. It is further alleged that the District Magistrate did not mention at all as to whether the petitioner had been ordered to be released on bail in any case or not and as to what steps the petitioner has taken for his release on bail in any other case. The only independent nonofficial witness joined in the investigation in the alleged cases against the petitioner was Balbir Singh son of Mangal Singh, Jat resident of Rasulpur, Jora, District Patiala and this Balbir Singh had given an affidavit that in his presence no arm, ammunition or any other material had been recovered by the Police and that he was called at the Police Station Sadar, Patiala and was made to sign some papers. The affidavit of this witness has been reproduced in detail in the petition.

The petition also mentions that the petitioner was arrested on 20.9.1985 and ever since then he has been in custody till the passing of the detention order. The petitioner was arrested in November, 1985 in case FIR No. 196 of 1984, under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Central Chandigarh and his bail application was declined by the High Court vide its order dated 16.7.1986, in Criminal Miscellaneous 2740 of 1986, and there was, therefore, no chance of the petitioner coming out from custody or bring released from jail. The District Magistrate seems to be ignorant of the details of the custody of the petitioner. The detention order nowhere mentions that the release of the petitioner on bail in such cases was imminent.

In reply the affidavit of Shri K.R. Lakhanpal Director, Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh (formerly District Magistrate, Ludhiana) has been filed. Therein the grounds in this petition have been countenanced and it is reiterated that the detention order was passed after bona fide satisfaction reached with due application of mind.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that cases which are the basis of the detention order and the grounds of detention are : FIR No. 485 dated 13.7.1985, under Section 379, Indian Penal Code of Central Police Station, Chandigarh; FIR 176 dated 31.7.1985, under Section 394, IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala; FIR No. 301 dated 20.9.1985 under Section 25 of the Arms Act of Police Station Sadar, Patiala and FIR 303 dated 27.9.1985, under Section 411, IPC Police Station Sadar Patiala and after the alleged occurrences, period of about 1 year 10 months; period of 1 year and 10 months; period of 1 year and 8 months and period of about 1 year 8 months lapsed before the passing of the detention order in respect of the petitioner and therefore, no continuity/proximity has been proved much less considered and that the said occurrences have become stale. He further argues that in such circumstance no such detention order could be passed by the District Magistrate and the detention order has to be preventive and not punitive. The learned counsel for the respondent has very ably resisted the reliance of the petitioner on grounds submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. His argument is that the petitioner''s background involving him in the above incident has been correctly considered by the District Magistrate and the detention order was passed after the District Magistrate had the subjective satisfaction thereof.

I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel thoroughly. This petition can be disposed of on a short ground of the incidents having become stale and there was no continuity or proximy to the incidents and the detention order. In the incident covered by FIR No. 485 dated 13.7.1985, under Section 379, IPC of Police Station Central, Chandigarh, theft of a car was involved. The report does not show where the petitioner was arrested in that case and on what basis. In case, FIR No. 176 dated 31.7.1985, under Section 394, IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, the same situation is present and it is not known where the petitioner was arrested and when in that case and on what basis.

To support this proposition, reference may be made to Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 682; Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1987 CC Cases 18 and Daya Ram v. Union of India, 1987(2) CLR 41. In Harnek Singh''s case (supra) the case against the petitioner under sections 307, 411 and 414 IPC was registered on 27.2.1980 and he was ordered to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (52 of 1974) and was put behind the bars on 10.7.1981. Besides these facts, being the subject matter of a prosecution launched against the petitioner, the fact, that the offences having been committed on 27.2.1980 could hardly form a ground for his detention on a date as late as 10.2.1981, the gap between the two being wellnigh a year and a half. It was further held that the charge was so stale in relation to the detention as not to have any real connection with it. The same was, therefore, quashed and the detenu was directed to be released from custody forthwith.

In Bhagwan Singh''s case (supra) under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, the detention order was passed on 21.3.1986 while the charge against the petitioner was for indulging in and transporting smuggled goods between April, 1985 to July 1985 and it was held by Pritpal Singh, J. (as the learned Judge then was of this High Court) that there was no proximity between the alleged activities and the detention order and the nexus between the two did not provide any rational subjective satisfaction. In these circumstances, the detention order which was passed after considerable delay was ordered to be quashed, as there was no adequate explanation forthcoming for the delay. The learned Judge observed that the order appeared to be punitive rather than preventive.

In Daya Ram''s case (supra), the detention order was passed under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. It was held by Sunanda Bhandare, J., that inordinate delay of three months in passing the detention order showed that there was no proximity/continuity between the occurrence and the detention, in such circumstances, was held to be invalid and quashed.

The principle laid down in the above three cases is aptly applicable to the facts of the present case, as there is no adequate explanation for the delay in passing the detention order after the said cases were registered.

In view of the above observations, this petition is accepted; the detention order; the grounds of detention and approval thereof are quashed. The petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.