BUTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu-petitioner was arrested on 19-4-1988 and in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered 16 missiles. A case under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 3/4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was registered against him vide FIR No 47 dated 19-4-1988 at Police Station, Kalanaur in district Gurdaspur. The District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, ordered the detention of the petitioner on 13-6-1988 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter called The Act'). Thereafter the State Government revoked the order of the District Magistrate on 24-6-1988 and vide Annexure P-1 passed a fresh detention order under Section 3(2) read with Section 14-A (1) and Section 14(2) of the Act by taking into consideration that although the detenu is in custody in the substantive case registered against him under the Arms Act etc., yet he is taking steps for his release on bail and there is likelihood of resuming such prejudicial activities in future. The grounds of detention Annexure P-2 were served upon the petitioner on the same date in Sangrur Jail where he was already confined.

(2.) The petitioner has sought the quashment of the said order of detention by invoicing the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on various grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed only three grounds, the first being that the detenu being already in custody, there was no justification for passing the detention order. The second ground is that the detention order is bad as only one incident of possession of missiles would not amount to future propensity of the petitioner in dealing in such like activities. Lastly, it is contended that the grounds of detention Annexure P-2 being the verbatim copy of the report of the sponsoring authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala, it is a clear case of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by Under Secretary to the Government of Punjab in the Home Department, it is maintained that the factum of detenu being already in custody was considered by the detaining authority at the time of passing the impugned order and that the very possession of 16 missiles by the detenu is in itself sufficient to conclude that the petitioner had indulged in this activity after due planning. It is further averred that the detaining authority had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case even though the same were contained in the proposed grounds of detention by the sponsoring authority.