SURMDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged theorder of detention dated 11/06/1993 bearing No. F.No. 673/64/93-CUS.VIIIpassed by Shri Mahender Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India, respondentNo. 2. -.

(2.) . On 11/02/1993 the petitioner alongwith one Jagtar Singh and AmanPreet Singh was intercepted and taken into custody by the Custom Officers atSiliguri, near Jaigoan Border, Check Post of Bhutan Border. It is alleged that 697gms gold was recovered from the petitioner which was concealed in his rectum.Some recoveries of gold were also made from the other two persons who wereintercepted alongwith the petitioner. The petitioner denied his concern or anyrelation with the other persons. On 12/02/1993 statement of the petitionerwas recorded. It is alleged that again on 19/02/1993 statement of thepetitioner was recorded while in custody. The petitioner was granted bail on 1 5/04/1993. On 11/06/1993 the impugned detention order was passed againstthe petitioner. On 9/12/1993 the petitioner was shown to have beendetained by the Punjab Police (Patiala) in pursuance of the said detention order.The detention order was served on the petitioner on the said date while he was incustody. The petitioner was taken to Calcutta in custody. On 12/12/1993the petitioner was lodged in the Presidency Jail, Alipore, Calcutta. According to thepetitioner on 12.12.1993 though his signatures were obtained on various paperswhile in custody in Alipore Jail, the grounds of detention or the documents reliedupon were not served upon him. This allegation is of course denied by therespondents. According to the respondents the grounds of detention as well as thedocuments relied upon by the Detaining Authority were served on the petitioneron the said date. I need not enter into this controversy because the present petitionis being disposed of on another point raised on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) . During the course of arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner confinedhis challenge to the detention order to the ground of delay in execution of thedetention order. According to the learned Counsel the detention order was passedon 11.6.1993 but the same was served on the petitioner only on 9/12/1993.According to the petitioner there is no explanation for this inordinate delay inserving the detention order on the petitioner and, therefore, the link between thealleged prejudicial activity and the object sought to be achieved through detentiongot snapped.