NASEEM AHMED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Naseem Ahmed son of Khalil Ahmed through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondent to release him from illegal and unlawful detention.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that petitioner is being kept in detention in Central Jail, Patiala, under detention order which was passed by respondent under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of the Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as COFEPOSA Act). Heisagedabout35 years and has got four children. He has got aged parents, father being 75 years and mother being 68 years old. Petitioner had been dealing in wood carving works at Saharanpur. He alongwith one Jabbar son of abdul Khaliq and Mohammad Sadiq, who were also residents of Saharanpur started the work of sale of wood carved items in the month of December, 1990 at the foot-paths of Amritsar to earn their livelihood after purchasing and preparing the same at Saharanpur. One Mohammad Hassan and son of Maqsood Ahmed of Saharanpur was known to the petitioner and aforesaid two others. He had gone to Pakistan and returned to India. He reached Amritsar on 1-1-1991. Petitioner along with Jabbar Khan and Mohammad Sadiq went to Amritsar Railway Station on 1-1-1991 to receive him and noticed that some persons after having left packets behind were running. It was in good faith and like a good citizen that the petitioner is stated to have enquired from the persons chasing the aforesaid floeing persons as to what had happened. On that, the persons disclosed their identity as Customs Officers and told them to pick up the packets and bring the same. On petitionerTs and others refusing to do so, the persons claiming themselves to be customs officers gave severe beatings to them on the railway platform. During the course of investigation, the custom officers raided Hotel National, Amritsar on 1-1-1991 from where they arrested one Gulsher and Altaff and recovered currency notes worth Rs. 2,28,60e)/-. The aforesaid Gulsher and Altaff convinced the Customs Officers that they had come from Saharanpur to start wood business at Amritsar with Gulzar Ahmed of Amritsar and the said currency notes brought by them from Saharanpur were to be invested in hiring the shop at Amritsar and to give Pugri for the same and for the purchase of goods. However, the Custom Officers, it is alleged, falsely implicated the petitioner and two others in a criminal case under Section 135 of the Customs Act and arrested them on 2-1-1991. They gave them beatings and got their signatures by undue influence, coercion and beatings on some statement said to have been made on 2-1-1991 at Custom House, Amritsar. Petitioner was produced before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on 3-1-1991. He stated before the Court that he had been falsely implicated and that his statement had been recorded under threat, beatings, undue influence through the application moved by his counsel on 3-1-1991. It is stated that the statement of petitioner recorded on 2-1-1991 was retracted on first opportunity available before the Judicial Officer. He was, released on bail on 10-1-1991 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. He was on bail and regularly attending the Court at Amritsar on the dates fixed in the case. However, on the night of 16-12-1994 when the petitioner was sleeping at his house at Saharanpur, the police party arrested him from his house and took him to police line at Amritsar where he was detained. He was not produced before any Judicial Officer nor was any remand obtained. He was served with a detention order dated 29-8-1991 on 19-12-1994 at Amritsar. It is this order, as referred to above, which is sought to be quashed in the present petition.

(3.) The main grounds asking for quashing the detention order are that the alleged prejudicial activity was of 1-1-1991 and the order of detention, Annexure P-3 was passed on 29-8-1991 i.e. after a period of about eight months and the same was made effective on 19-12-1994 i.e. after a period of more than four years of the alleged prejudicial activity. It is also pleaded and so argued by Mr. Mehlani, learned counsel for the petitioner, that no effective steps were taken to arrest the petitioner all this while and this in itself was sufficient to quash the order of detention.