BALBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ of habeas corpus, the detention of Balbir Singh @ Pappu Singh under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is sought to bequashed. That order was made by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi on 25-5-1984, and it was mentioned that this was with a view to prevent him from abetting the smuggling of goods viz. wrist watches straps etc.

(2.) In the detailed grounds of detention attached with the detention order, it was mentioned that one Rameshwari Devi who used to collect rubbish at the Palam Airport, was apprehended while removing a card-board box containing four packets from the Inernational Departure Hall near Immigration counter on 28-3-1983. Those packets were found to contain 461 wrist watches and 119 watch straps collectively valued at Rs. 61.790.00 (c.i.f.). They were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Her personal search further revealed that she was in possession of Rs. 2400.00 which too were seized. Investigation next revealed that one transit passenger Irshad Ahmed, a Pakistani passport holder, had delivered those packets. His luggage was searched resulting in recovery of 180 wrist watches and three packets of watch parts and 2000 pieces of integrated circuits, collectively valued at Rs. 55,000.00 . Irshad Ahmed mentioned the name of Ram Kewal to whom he handed over the four packets of watches and straps to be delivered to one Kanhiya Lal who in turn had to hand them over to one Raja staying at D-10, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. It was Ram Kewal who had in turn asked Rameshwari to take those packets outside from there. That Rajpuri Garden property belongs to Mohan Singh and his brother Balbir Singh who is the detenu in the present case. Raja @ Mohd. Riaz Khan and Mohan Singh were said to be involved in the business of smuggling and in this activity Balbir Singh was abetting them. I need not reproduce here the other details of the statements of different persons which the custom officials recorded in order to bring out the chain how several persons have b;en conniving in the acts of smuggling. A complaint already stands filed against them by the custom authorities on 29-3-1983. I have refrained from elaborating here that chain and the broad outlines of the case set up in that complaint as the factual appraisement is not within the province of this Court unless it could be shown that it was a mere pretence or no reasonable man could have in any case considered the complicity of the detenu in the same to exist. The subjective satisfaction in that regard primarily has to be of the detaining authority.

(3.) However, there are grounds which otherwise call for the quashing of the detention order. The purpose of detention is to act with promptitude so that further course of conduct of the detenu in furtherance of his designs to pursue unlawful activity is set at naught. For this, the acts aiready committed by him should provide close proximity to the future designs necessitating detention. As such time lag unless reasonably explained, may not justify belated detention. The past conduct or antecedent history should ordinarily be proximate in point of time and should have a rational connection with the conclusion that the detention of the person is necessary. Of course, no rigidity is involved in this, and it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If in a given case the time lag between the prejudicial activity of the detenu and the detention order made because of that activity is ex facie long, the detaining authority should explain the delay in the making of the detention order with a view to show that there was proximity between the . prejudicial activity and the detention order. If the detaining authority fails to do so, in spite of opportunity having been afforded to it, as serious infirmity would creep into the detention order. See in this regard Sk. Abdul Munnaf v. The State of West Bengal, 1974 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)( 857).