BHAWANI SINGH Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY GOVT OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of detention order dated 30.3.1995, Annexure P-i under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) On 30.10.1994, while the police party headed by Narinderpal Singh, Superintendent of Police Moga, was going in connection with patrolling and search of suspected notorious persons from village Killi Chehal towards village Churchak on Katca Path, Ambassador car bearing registration No. PB-29-7261 was seen coming from the opposite direction. Signal was given to stop the car. Petitioner was found driving the car and another-person, later identified as Gumaib Singh son of Dial Singh, resident of Sandhu Kalan, P.S. Bahadur, District Sangrur, was sitting beside the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, after obtaining no objection from the petitioner and his associate, searched the car and as a result, two packets of opium wrapped in glazed paper were recovered from the backside of the front seat of the said car. Sample of 50 grams of opium was drawn out from each packet which was put in the two separate tins. The seizure Memo was prepared and P.I.R. No.73 dated 30.10.1994 was registered against the petitioner and his associate.

(3.) The State Government, after having satisfied itself that the petitioner has been engaging possession, sale and importing inter-state narcotic drugs within the meaning of the Act, passed an order of detention with a view to preventing the petitioner from indulging in the above said prejudicial activities in future. The detention order and the grounds of detention have been assailed mainly on the following grounds. (i) that the detention order was passed when the petitioner was already in judicial custody; the detaining authority had no material before it to come to the conclusion that the petitioner, if released on bail, would again indulge in prejudicial activities non- showing of the compelling reasons has vitiated the detention order; (ii) that the petitioner made representation dated 26.5.1995, Annexure P-3, to the State Government against the detention order but the same-was decided on 11.8.1995 i.e. after a delay of 75 days; likewise representation dated 26.5.1995 was made to the Central Government and the same was decided on 17.7.1995 i. e. after a delay of 61 days; failure of Government to decide the representation expeditiously has vitiated the detention order.