GURJEET KAUR Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer made is for quashing of order dated 20.9.1995 (Annexure P-1) passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as grounds of detention.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that on 1.1.1995 at about 12.30 p.m., the police party headed by SI Darshan Singh, SHO, P.S. Saddar Jalalabad along with ASIs Dinesh Singh and Ram Singh, Constable Sukhchain Singh (No. 1281), were going to village Ghubaiya from village Fattuwala and when they reached near the turning in the area of village Ghubaiya, petitioner was apprehended along with an attache case, while standing towards the western side of the road. On seeing the police party, the petitioner tried to escape but was apprehended. An option was given to the petitioner to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer and lady police. Accordingly, D.S.P. Sub Division, Fazilka along with lady constable Surjit Kaur and Malkiat Kaur reached at the spot. The attache case was opened in their presence and a packet containing opium wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from the attache case. A sample was taken and recovery memo. was prepared and the petitioner was arrested on the spot and produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate on 1.1.1995 and remanded to police custody.

(3.) IN this petition, the detention order and the grounds of detention are being sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner had been detained only on the basis of single incident of alleged smuggling. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the grounds of detention do not mention any incident or activity on the part of the petitioner previous to the alleged activity or after the petitioner was released on bail. He contended that the order of detention is punitive and not preventive and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. The other ground taken is that there is no nexus between the alleged activity and the order of detention which has been passed after nine month of the alleged activity. In answer to these submissions, counsel for the respondents submitted that apart from the activity for which the petitioner was arrested on 1.1.1995 surveillance was kept on her after she was released on bail during which it was revealed that she was still indulging in smuggling of opium and in order to prevent her, the order of detention was passed against her.