BALKAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 620 of 1991, 621, 1991 of 622 of 1991 and 623 of 1991 as these arise out of identically worded detention orders dated 15-2-1991 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act) by respondent No. 1 against all the petitioners.

(2.) ALL the four petitioners have been detained under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act vide orders dated 15-2-1991 passed by respondent No. 1 While in Criminal Writ Petition No. 620 of 1991, Balkar Singh was detained on 18-3-1991, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 621 of 1991 Baldev Singh was detained on 12th April, 1991, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 622 of 1991 Subeg Singh was detained on 29th March, 1991 and in Criminal Writ Petition No. 623 of 1991, Labh Singh was detained on 14-3-1991. It may be mentioned that Balkar Singh and Baldev Singh, petitioners, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 620 on 1991 and 621 of 1991 respectively are sons of Labh Singh petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 623 of 1991, while Subeg Singh petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 622 of 1991 is cultivating land adjacent to the land of Labh Singh. Gold biscuits numbering 5.0, weighing 59,466.0 grams of foreign origin and valuing Rs. 1,99,21, 110/- had been recovered from the possession of all the four petitioners on 31-10-1990 by the Border Security Force party. This ground, amongst others, formed the basis of the detention of the petitioners. The detention has been challenged by the petitioners on diverse grounds. The respondents, on the other hand, have controverted the allegations of the petitioners and submitted that there is no illegality in the orders of detention, passed against the petitioner.

(3.) BEFORE parting, another point; which was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be examied. In all these cases, the alleged activity, forming the basis of the detention of the petitioners attributed to them having taken place on 29/30-10-1990 but the detention order was passed against them on 15-2-1991. There was thus a delay of 3-1/2 months in passing the detention order. The point to be considered is as to whether the detention order, when passed after such a long delay can be sustained. It was held by the Supreme Court in Rabindra Kumar Ghosel v. The State of West Bangal, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1408 that the whole purpose and object, of the Act is that persons who are likely to imperil public order are not allowed to be free to indulge in the dangerous activity. The chain of connection between the dangerous activities relied on and the detention order passed is snapped by the long and unexplained delay of about three months. Therefore, the detention order was found unsustainable. It is true that this judgment was handed down by their Lordships in a case under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act but ratio of the judgemnt would equally apply to cases under the COFEPOSA Act as well and, therefore, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rabindra Kumar Ghosel's case (supra) would also. be attracted to the facts of the present case and hence the orders of detention passed against the petitoners after a long delay of nearly 3-1/2 months of the alleged activity attributed to them would be rendered unsustainable.