DURGA DASS SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of his detention which took place on 23-4-1987 in pursuance of a detention order passed on 28-4-1986. The detention order was passed on the basis of an event which took place on 19-4-1986 in which one Karim Yusuf, Ravinder Bali and one Satya Narain were hauled up for violation of the provisions of Customs Act. They were found smuggling foreign made gold. They were arrested by the D. R. I. Officers and on 20-4-1986. They were produced before the Duty Magistrate with an application for remand. Pursuant to this the house of the petitioner was searched at Jammu on 22-4-1986. The detention order as stated earlier was actually served on the detenu on 23-4-1987 since which date he is supposed to be in detention on the basis of this detention warrant.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was all along in his house at Jammu and that on 13-4-1987 he was taken into custody by Jammu Police and was confined till 22-4-1987 without the authority of law though on 23-4-1987 the impugned detention warrant was served upon him. In this regard the detenu had moved habeas corpus petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir under Section 491 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Challenge to the validity of detention is thrown on a variety of grounds but Mr. Harjinder Singh confident of his success has raised two main contentions. In the first place Mr. Harjinder Singh contends that there has been a total non-application of mind by the detaining aurhority inasmuch as the detaining authority while serving the grounds of detention on the petitioner-detenu has almost in verbatim reproduced the contents of the remand application which was submitted to the court by the D. R. I. Officials. Secondly Mr. Harjinder Singh has vehemently argued that the detention order that was passed on 28-4-1986 was executed on 23-4-1987, almost after one year of its passing and thereby it has frustrated the purpose of detention and there is no nexus between the alleged activity and the purpose for which the detention is sought to be made. It may be noticed that the detention order Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, in respect of the detenu has been passed with a view to prevent him from smuggling the goods, abetting the smuggling of goods, engaging in transporting the smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods. The purpose for which the detention is made clearly shows that it was thought necessary to pass the detention order with a view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in smuggling activities. That being the object the detention order ought to have been executed with utmost urgency unless there were circumstances in existence which prevented the detaining authority from executing the same.