Sant Ram Singh vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.

Sant Ram Singh petitioner by means of this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of detention order No. 5/10/932HIII (PIINDPS) 591 dated May 7, 1993.

The facts on the basis of which the detention order was passed may be drawn from grounds of detention Annexure P4.

On December 1, 1992 working on the basis of an information the staff of Customs and Police, Amritsar, laid a naka at GT Road, near Pingalwara, Amritsar. At about 14.30 hours, the petitioner was seen coming and was immediately rounded up and on inquiry, the petitioner gave his name and parentage and from his possession one packet containing brown powder described to be heroin was recovered. The petitioner had no documents for the lawful possession of the same and as such the same was taken into possession. The packet was got weighed in the presence of two independent witnesses and it was found to be 1.020 kgs. Three samples were drawn, each weighing 10 gms. and the same were separately sealed. The packet was also sealed. The petitioner was taken to Customs House, Amritsar, where his statements were recorded. The representative sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, New Delhi for test report which was confirmed to contain Diacetyle Morphine. In his statement, the petitioner admitted the recovery of the heroin from him and further disclosed that two persons had come to his factory running under the name and style of M/s. J.S. Textile, Hoshiarpur and asked him for the rates of spun cloth. Thereafter, they gave a promise to pay Rs. 2,000/ if the petitioner delivers a packet to their man. The petitioner agreed to that proposal and those persons handed over to him a packet of the narcotic powder and told him to deliver the same to a 30 years old Hindu gentleman who will be wearing a graycolour jacket and will meet him near Sangam Cinema on G.T. Road. The petitioner could not give the where about of those two persons but described them to be two Sikhsone of 40 years and the other of 30 years old.

Before he could contact the Hindu gentleman, he had been detained by the police. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the C.J.M., Amritsar who remanded him to judicial custody and ultimately allowed him bail on December 24, 1992. On the basis of this activity, it had been found necessary to detain him.

The petitioner has challenged this detention on the grounds that there was a delay in passing of the detention order, the grounds of detention were totally vague. That the order is passed on confessional statement which was obtained under torture and duress.

With respect to the matter of delay, it is stated in the return that it took sufficient long time to investigate the case at various levels as the antecedents of the petitioner and his various links had to be unearthed and proved. After collecting and thoroughly examination the entire material on record, the sponsoring authority had sponsored the proposal on January 19, 1993 to the state Government, which was received by the respondent on January 25, 1993 and the proposal was examined by the legal Agency on January 27, 1993. Some additional information was sought vide letter dated February 4, 1993. In the meantime, the case was further examined and original grounds of detention which were in Punjabi were prepared and then translated into English. Number of copies of supporting material were typed which was a voluminous job and consumed sufficient long time. The case was again examined by the Legal Agency on February 23, 1993 and was received back by the respondent on February 22, 1993. Some more clarifications were asked for from the sponsoring authority vide State Government letter dated March 1, 1993 and reminders were sent on March 3, 1993 and March 22, 1993. The proposal was again examined on April 28, 1993 by the Legal Agency in the light of the clarifications made and ultimately the proposal for passing the detention order was sent to State Law Department on April 30, 1993 where it remained under examination till May 3, 1993. After consideration of the material on record, with due application of mind, the detention order was passed on May 5, 1993 and formal order was issued on May 7, 1993. Details of the holidays during the intervening period were also given.

The return filed by the respondent shows that for the first time the case was sponsored after a lapse of more than 11/2 month. After the receipt of clarification, the case was examined on February 23, 1993 and then some clarifications were sought but for two months nothing more happened. It was only on April 28, 1993 that the proposal was further examined. There was, thus, a complete inaction on the part of the detaining authority for a period of two months.

In Lakshman Khatik v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 1264, dealing with the question of delay in passing of the order, their Lordship observed as follows :

"Indeed mere delay in passing a detention order is not conclusive but we have to see the type of grounds given and consider whether such grounds could really weigh with an officer some 7 months later in coming to the conclusion that it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of essential supplies of foodgrains. It is not explained why there was such a long delay in passing the order. The District Magistrate appears almost to have passed an order of conviction and sentence for offences committed about 7 months earlier. The authorities concerned must have due regard to the object with which the order is passed, and if the object was to prevent disruption of supplies of foodgrains one should think that prompt action in such matters should be taken as soon as incidents like those which are referred to in the grounds have taken place. In our opinion, the order of detention is invalid."

In T.A. Abdul Rehman v. State of Kerala, 1989(2) Recent Criminal Report 459 : 1989(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 294 (SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under :

"When there is time lag of 11 months between the prejudicial activities and the order of detention the test as to whether the detention should be quashed, on the on the ground of delay is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting the number of months; the Court should examine whether the Detaining Authority has satisfactorily explained the delay."

Since there is a timegap between the prejudicial activity and the passing of the detention order, the proposal for detention was sponsored only after the petitioner was allowed bail and to cap it all there was inaction on the part of the detaining authority for a period of two months, the petitioner is justified in saying that the delay had snapped the nexus between the prejudicial activity and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

This is, thus, a proper case where this Court should intervene even at preexecution stage.

I hereby allow the petition and quash the detention order. This petition stands disposed of.