ABDUL SATTAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABDUL Sattar detenu, a national of Pakistan, through this writ petition has challanged the detention order Annexure P-1 passed by the Under Secretary to the Government, Punjab, Home Department on 29.5.1989 under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short called the Act) with a view to preventing him from engaging in concealing, transporting and importing into India Narcotic Drugs. The detenu was already in custody in violation or the provisions of Import Trade Control Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-1955, as amended, and issued under section 3(1) of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947 read with sections 11 and 77 of the Customs Act, 1967 and section 3 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The detension order along with the grounds of detention was served upon the detenu in the jail on 18-7-1989.

(2.) A brief resume of relevant facts figuring in the grounds of detention Annexure P. 2 served upon the petitioner is that on 18-12-1988, the petitioner alighted from Pakistan at Attari Railway Station from 208 Dn. Train. The petitioner declared before the Customs authorities that he was not carrying any gold, watches or any other contraband goods. The petitioner was then carrying two bags. The nervousness of the petitioner at the time of declaration before the Customs authorities aroused suspicion and resulted in searching the bags thoroughly in the presence of two independent witnesses. As a result of the search the following items were recovered from bags:

(3.) I have gone through the original file of the sponsoring authority. A perusal of the file reveals that vide letter No. C. No. VIII (HQRS) PREV/PD/NDPS/6/88/627 dated 8.3.1989 written by the Customs and Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh to the Home Secretary, Punjab Government, Chandigarh, the proposal for detention under section 3(1) of the Act against Abdul Sattar son of Amir Khan of Karachi alongwith the grounds of detention and documents mentioned therein was sent. A perusal of the proposed grounds of detention leaves no doubt that except for in para No. 1, the parentage of Abdul Sattar is missing in the proposed grounds of detention, the other grounds of detention served upon the petitioner are verbatim copy of the proposed grounds of detention. In para No. 1 parentage of Abdul Sattar is not mentioned but the same is mentioned in the grounds served upon the petitioner. The matter does not rest here as towards the end of proposed grounds of detention, the sponsoring authority has not mentioned its own name but has mentioned the detaining authority as Under Secretary to Government, Punjab, Home Department. Thus, there is no escape but to conclude that it is a clear case of non application of mind by the detaining authority to the facts and cicumstances of the case and thus, it cannot be said that the order of detention was passed after due application of mind and on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.