AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMRIK Singh through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks direction to be issued to the respondents to release him immediately by setting aside order No. 1/41/91(COFEPOSA)/1697 dated 18.9.1991 (Annexure P-1).

(2.) THERE are several points raised in this petition asking for the desired relief but the point mainly argued by Mr. R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that concededly the prejudicial activity indulged by the petitioner is alleged to be of 2.10.1990 whereas detention order in this case was passed on 12.9.1991 i.e. after a period of about 11 months and that still further the order of detention was executed on 28.7.1994 i.e. almost after a period of three years. For his contention that when there is unexplained delay in executing the detention order, then the detention order is liable to be quashed, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in P.U. Iqbal v. Union of India and others, 1992 Criminal Appeal Reports 53. This judgment was followed by me while quashing the detention order in Crl.W.P. No. 558 of 1994 (Baldev Singh @ Deba Adhi v. The State of Punjab and others) on 17th of January, 1995.

(3.) IN so far as delay in executing the order of detention is concerned, it is pleaded that the petitioner could not be served the order of detention for about three years. Strenuous efforts were made to serve the detention order upon the petitioner but he was playing hide and seek with the police and was intentionally evading the execution of the detention order and that non- service of detention order for about three years does not mean that the detention order passed against the petitioner was illegal. In fact, he was absconding and intentionally went under ground and concealed himself and his whereabouts could not be known. It is also pleaded that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. The gap-period between the passing of detention order till the date of execution could not be of any benefit to the petitioner.