CHARAN SINGH ALIAS CHARNA MEHRA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUNJAB DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND JUSTICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the detenu seeks the quashment of the order of detention Annexure P-1 passed by the Government of Punjab u/S. 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with a view to preventing him from indulging in the smuggling and selling of narcotic drugs.

(2.) A brief re'sume' of facts disclosed in the grounds of detention Annexure P 1/ A served upon the detenu is that in the fourth week of April, 1988, the detenu along with his old acquaintance Charanjit Singh contributed Rs. 10,000.00 each for smuggling opium from Pakistan. Thereafter, both of them crossed the international border and contacted one Bassi Musalman who delivered them 20 kilograms of opium against the payment of Rs. 20,000.00. This opium was sold by the detenu to Ajit Singh for Rs. 30,000.00 and the profit of Rs. 10,000.00 was equally shared by both of them. Again in the beginning of second week of May, 1988, both these persons procured 20 kilograms of opium from aforesaid Bassi Musalman, resident of village Burki in Pakistan and smuggled the same to India. The detenu then sold this opium again to Ajit Singh and earned profit of Rupees 10,000/-. Thereafter, in the first week of June, 1988, both these persons again smuggled 20 kilograms of opium from Pakistan and the detenu sold the same to aforesaid Ajit Singh. The detenu was arrested on 4/08/1988, by the Police of police station Gharinda in case FIR No.173 dated 3-8-1988 u/S.411/414 of the Indian Penal Code and u/ S. 25 of the Arms Act and S. 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. etc. The detenu is alleged to have made a confessional statement before the police on 5/08/1989 admitting that he was indulging in the smuggling of opium as referred above.

(3.) The detenu in this writ petition apart from other grounds has challenged the detention order on the ground of there being no proximity between the prejudicial activities indulged in by the detenu and passing of the detention order; on the ground of the non-application of mind by the detaining authority to the factum that the petitioner has already been released on bail before passing the detention order; on the ground of undue delay in disposing of the representation of the detenu and on the ground that the provisions of the above referred Act would not be applicable to the activities of the petitioner relating to the period when the provisions of this Act had not come into force.