PARMOD KUMAR Vs. LT GOVERNER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Detention of Parmod Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "detenu"), pursuant to the order of detention passed by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Home (Police-II) Department on 5/04/1999, in purported exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), is under challenge by this petition for issue of writ of habeas corpus by his wife Smt. Anita. By the said order, detenu was directed to be detained in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi. The order was passed with a view to preventing detenu from smuggling goods.

(2.) Though several grounds have been taken in the petition, at the time of hearing, it was urged that the grounds of detention were not served, as required under the Act, within the stipulated time. The grounds of detention and relied upon documents were supplied much after the dead-line fixed by the Statute. Reference in this context is made to Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. Learned Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that inspite of best efforts the requisite documents could not be served within the stipulated time. It is submitted that merely because there has been some delay in serving the documents, that per se does not render the detention invalid. It is pointed out that on 2/10/2000 police officials of Police Station Chhaprauli, District Baghpat in Uttar Pradesh detained the detenu, and information to this effect was received by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (in short "N.C.T.") by a fax message on 3rd October, 2000. Immediately after receiving the message, a wireless message was sent on 4/10/2000 to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, District Baghpat with a request to return the acknowledged copy of detention order, grounds of detention and other relied upon documents. On 19th October, 2000 Government received undelivered and unacknowledged sets of documents alongwith grounds of detention. Thereafter on 21/10/2000 the grounds of detention and other relied upon documents were supplied to the detenu in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi through the Customs Authorities. In the further affidavit filed, it has been stated that on finding that no information was received from the police officials in Uttar Pradesh, notwithstanding request to return the acknowledged copy of detention order, grounds of detention and relied upon documents, another wireless message dated 12/10/2000 was sent to Superintendent of Police, District Baghpat and SHO, Police Station Chhaprauli. On 19th October, 2000, as indicated above, unexecuted documents were received from the Superintendent of Police, District Baghpat, U.P. Thereafter the documents were served. A plea was taken that in case a detenu refuses to accept the documents tendered that would constitute valid service.

(3.) In order to appreciate rival submissions, it is necessary to take note of Section 3 which deals with inter alia the time limits for service of grounds of detention etc. Said pivotal provision in this case, reads as follows: