PRABHAKAR REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu, Sri S.A. Rawoof, was ordered by the District Magistrate, Warangal, on 5-12-1983 to be detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on the ground that he was acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention served on the detenu refer to five incidents.

(2.) Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned counsel for the detenu, contenos that ground Nos. 1 to 3 relate to the events of 1981 and the detention order was passed on 5-12-1983 and thus the order of detention has no proxmity with the events of 1981, which form the basis for detention and he, therefore, contends that the order of detention does not satisfy the proximity test and it is liable to be quashed. In support cf his contention, he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Harnek Singh vs.. State of Punjab.

(3.) In Harnek Singh vs. State oj Punjab one Narinder Singh was detained in pursuance of an order dated 4th November, 1980 passed under sub-sec, (i) of Section 3 ol the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention ol Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The main ground urged in support of the pention was that there is no nexus between the unlawful activities attributed to the detenu and his incarceration. The detaining authority relied upon a case covering offences under Sections 307, 411 and 414 of the I P. C, amongst others, registered against the detenu at Police Station Lopoke in Amritsar district on 27th February, 1980 and those offences are the only acts which form the basis of the impugned order. Those acts are also the subject-matter of a prosecution launched against the detenu, proceedings in relation to which have been going on in the Court of Amritsar Magistrate. During those proceedings the detenu was on bail and was appearing in court on every hearing right from January 2, 1981 till he was put behind the bars on 10th July, 1981 in pursuance of the impugned order. Their Lordships were of the opinion that offences which are said to have been committed by the detenu as far back as on 27th February, 1980 could hardly form a ground for his detention on a date as late as 10th July, 1981, the gap between the two being well-nigh a year and a half. No explanation at all has been furnished on behalf of the State as to why action under the Act was not taken at the earliest possible after the alleged commission of the offences which were the foundation of the grounds for detention. Their Lordships were also of the opinion that the charge was so stale in relation to the detention as not to have any real connection with it. Their Lordships further held that it was further noteworthy that no reason was put forward for the detenu not being taken in custody in pursuance of the impugned order (for which" the detaining authority was moved in the first instance by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Amritsar) right from January 2, 1981 till July 10, 1981 although he appeared in Court on all the dates of hearing fixed by the Magistrate during the period. In these circumstances their Lordships held that the detention takes the character of punitive rather than preventive action and it was, therefore, vitiated.