PARAMJIT SINGH @ PAMMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the detenu Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, who is presently detained in Central Jail, Bathinda, has challenged the order of detention dated 10.11.2005 (annexure P-1) passed by Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs & Justice, Chandigarh, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the COFEPOSA') being illegal and abuse of process of law, with a further prayer to release him from illegal detention. The order of detention was passed on the ground that the Secretary to Government of Punjab, was satisfied that the detenu Paramjit Singh had been abetting the smuggling of goods, therefore, it was necessary that he be detained with a view to prevent him from indulging in aforementioned activities in future. The grounds of detention were also supplied to the detenu with the impugned order. The detenu submitted representation (Annexure P-9) against the impugned order on 1.12.2005, to the Government of India as well as to the Punjab Government which were rejected vide order dated 7.2.2006 (Annexure R-3) by the Punjab Government and vide order dated 6.2.2006 (Annexure R-4) by the Central Government.

(2.) BEFORE adverting to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of grounds of detention, which read as under :-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further argued that so far as statements relied upon by the detaining authority of the petitioner as well as that of Makhan Singh, Jagdish Singh, Roshan Lal, Darshan Lal, Ravi Kumar, Baldev Singh, Mehar Singh and Rajan Kumar, co-accused are concerned, the said statements were made before the police, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration as they are hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is further argued that insofar as the ground that detention order has been passed under the COFEPOSA and that petitioner has been possessing, transporting and concealing narcotic drugs, passing of impugned detention order on the basis of these grounds clearly shows non-application of mind by the detaining authority as there is a special Act, viz., Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to take action against a person dealing in narcotics. It is, thus, argued that the detaining authority mechanically signed the draft submitted by the sponsoring authority and did not apply its mind.