LUMBAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PAGES 1 to 9, 12, 15 and 16 of the loose sheets recovered from the conscious exclusive possession of the detenu petitioner Lumber Singh on 16th November, 1989 along with Rs. 48,000/- cash revealed that the detenu petitioner had distributed Rs. 11,25,000/- to 32 persons detailed in the grounds of detention Annexure P.3 by way of compensation under instructions from Nirmal Singh of England and was yet to pay Rs. 44 00/- of Rs. 48.000/- recovered from him) to Smt. Banso on this score. In order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange, detaining authority passed against the detenu petitioner order Annexure P. 1 on 21st February,. 1990. After obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Committee, the order was confirmed vide Annexure P. 2 dated 23rd May. 1990.

(2.) VALIDITY of the detention order Annexure P. 1 has been assailed by the detenu petitioner in Cr. WP No. 1836 of 1990 on the grounds that it was, made mechanically without application of mind by the detaining authority to the facts and circumstances of the case, that the representation made by the petitioner on 6th April, 1990 was declined by the Central Government on 7th May, 1990 after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than a month, that the detention order was made because the detenu petitioner had been released on bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, on 24th November, 1989 and is, therefore, punitive in character instead of being prohibitive and that the detention order having been made 3 months and 5 days after the alleged recovery and enforced nearly three weeks thereafter on 14th March, 1990 when the petitioner surrendered to the authorities concerned of his own accord is liable to be quashed.

(3.) IT is conceded before me at the Bar by learned counsel for the respondents that detention orders passed by the detaining authority against Ranjit Singh and Parmodh Kumar; through who the detenu Petitioner was receiving money and its distribution instructions from England have already been quashed by this Court. Ranjit Singh was in fact the carrier of money and Parmodh Kumar used to get instructions for its distribution from 'Mamaji' of England on telephone and passed it to the detenu petitioner.