DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition of habeas corpus under Articles 22 and 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Darshan Singh petitioner praying therein that the order of detention of Gurdeep Singh detenu son of Shri Pradhan Singh, 6 Model Gram, Ludhiana, Annexure P/1 be quashed and set aside that being illegal.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this petition are as under. On 22nd July, 1983, Gurdeep Singh detenu was apprehended by the Central Excise Prevention Staff, Ludhiana Division, at house No 827, Koocha No. 13, Field Ganj, Ludhiana This house belonged to one Jaswant Singh son of Harnam Singh. The detenu was found in possession of 697 pieces of wrist watches and 92 pieces of chains of foreign origin of the value of Rs. 1,85,540 which he had purchased from. various pedlars at Bombay without any bill, voucher or any other document showing their legal import, He smuggled these articles and brought them to Ludhiana on 22nd July, 1983. The watches and chains were seized by the Central Excise Preventive Staff, Gurdeep Singh is alleged to have made a confessional statement before the officers of the Central Excise Preventive Staff, Ludhiana Division on 22nd July, 1983. A copy of the same is annexed as P3 to the petition. On 23rd July, 1983, Gurdeep Singh gave a telegram to the Collector, Customs Chandigarh, stating therein that the confession had been obtained under, threat and pressure and thereby retracted the same The Governor' of Punjab (detaining authority) after going through the material placed before him was pleased to order the detention of Gurdeep Singh aforesaid on 17th May, 1984, under Section 3(1) of the conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, copy of which is Annexure P. 1 to the petition. The grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu under the signatures of the Deputy Secretary to Government. Punjab Home Department. A translation of the same annexed to this petition as P/2. Darshan Singh petitioner has challenged the order of detention of Gurdeep Singh through this petition.

(3.) MR . K. S. Thapar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended at the outset that the omission on the part of the Customs Department to place the telegram before the detaining authority vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and renders the detention of Gurdeep Singh detenu illegal, as the telegram retracting the confession was a material and vital fact which could influence the mind of detaining authority one way or the other. In this context he has placed reliance on the Supreme Court authority reported as Ashadevi v. K. Shivraj. Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, and another, (1979) 1 Supreme Court Cases 222, wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold that :-