MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Mohinder Singh was detained under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide an order dated December 27, 1985 (Annexure P.1). Initially he was detained for a period of one year, but subsequently vide an order dated July 23, 1986 (Annexure P.3), the period of detention was enhanced to two years on the opinion of the Advisory Board. In the present writ petition he has assailed the validity of his detention.

(2.) IN pursuance of detention order dated December 27, 1985 (Annexure P.1) the petitioner was arrested and detained on January 27, 1986 for one year. This period has already expired, therefore, the validity of the said order has not been challenged before me by the learned petitioner's counsel. It is the subsequent order dated July 23, 1986 (Annexure P.3) for continued detention of the petitioner for two years which has been strenuously assailed by the learned Counsel. This order in my view cannot be sustained.

(3.) ACCORDING to Section 10 of the Act, maximum period for which a person can be detained in pursuance to of an order of detention which the provisions of Section 9 do not apply and which has bee confirmed under Section 8(f) is one year from the date of detention or the specified period. However, the maximum period for which a person may be detained pursuant to an order of detention to which Section 9 of the Act applies and which has been confirmed under Section 8(f) read with Section 9(2) is two years from the date of detention or the specified period. It is held in Satar Habib Hamdani v. K.S. Dilip Sinhji and others, 1986(2) RCR(Crl.) 306 (SC) : AIR 1986 Supreme Court 418, that seen in the light of Sections 3, 8, 9 and 10, it appears that while generally the period for which a person may be preventively detained under the Act may not exceed a period of one year, in the case of certain kinds of activities the period may extend upto two years. This continued detention can only be on the opinion of the Advisory Board. In other words the Advisory Board is to state its opinion not merely whether detention is necessary but whether continued detention is necessary. The Supreme Court held : -