KHUSHIA BAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KHUSHIA Bai petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order of detention Annexure P. I dated 16-6-1989 passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the State Government with a view to preventing her from indulging/engaging in the concealing and possession of narcotic drugs smuggled from Pakistan into India. The above referred detention order dated 16-6-1989 was served upon the detenu on 1-7-1989 along with grounds of detention Annexure P2.

(2.) THE brief resume of facts figuring in the grounds of detention is that in the third week of July, 1988 Mohan Singh younger brother of the husband of the petitioner along with three other persons namely Khushal Singh, Jaga Singh and Fuman Singh came to her house with one bag of Charas each and apprised her that four of these bags contained 35 packets of Charas each while the fifth bag contained 25 packets. They also apprised her and her son Mehnga Singh that this Charas was smuggled from Pakistan and was sent by her husband. They advised her to conceal these bags immediately. Accordingly, she concealed all the five bags of Charas in a Kup of Turi. On 19-7-1488 the police of Police Station Guru Har Sahai apprehended her son and her brother-in-law Mohan Singh along with 35 packets of Charas carried by each one of them. On their interrogation they revealed her involvement in the concealment of Charas. Thereafter she was interrogated in case FIR No 143 dated 19-7-1988 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of Police Station Guru Har Sahai and in pursuance of her disclosure statement she got recovered 160 packets of Charas weighing in all 178 kilograms.

(3.) IN return filed by Shri S.K. Bhalla, Under Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice on behalf of the respondents, it is maintained that the test of proximity is not to be applied mechanically by counting the time consumed in passing the order of detention from the prejudicial activities indulged in by the detenu, if this gap of time had been cogently explained. In this case the sponsoring authority was busy in verifying various links of the petitioner besides being busy in tackling law and order problem due to the activities of the terrorists in the border area of District Ferozepur. It was also maintained that due to absconding of the petitioner the order of detention was not served upon her promptly and that the detaining authority had passed the detention order. with due application of mind, and the factum of the petitioner being on bail was also considered. It was further averred that a solitary incident involving the recovery of 178 kilograms of Charas is quite sufficient for passing the detention order against the petitioner.