GURDEV SINGH SARPANCH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Gurdev Singh was detained pursuant to an order of detention dated 26.10.1987 issued by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, who is respondent No. 2, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention is based on a couple of incidents resulting in security proceedings against the petitioner and case FIR No. 79 dated 7.7.1987 with regard to harbouring of terrorists as mentioned in the grounds on which the detention order was based which have been reproduced in para 3 of the petition. The latest incident is one on which above said FIR dated 7.7.1987 was based.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the order of detention has been correctly reproduced in para No. 2 of the petition and it discloses that the petitioner was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and security of State.

(3.) THE detention under National Security Act admittedly is a preventive measure and the same cannot be exercised as a punitive measure. If we refer to the various instances on which the order of detention has been based they are stale enough and it cannot be said that on their account a preventive action was called for on 26.10.1987. In other words there was no immediate or imminent reason for coming to such conclusion. The first incident is more than three and half years old. It occurred on 13.4.1984 and only proceedings under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were taken against the petitioner. The second is more than one year old being dated 14.8.1986 and in this respect as well only security proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were taken. The third and fourth incidents are also about one year old being dated 29.10.1986 and 19.11.1986 respectively. They also form basis of security proceedings. None of these proceedings could have legally subsisted at the time of the making of the detention order and the petitioner must have been discharged in all these cases by then as alleged by him which fact has not been specifically controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. With regard to the 5th incident no action was taken against the respondent. The 6th incident became the basis of FIR No. 79 dated 7.7.1987 and in that case petitioner was released on bail in the month of July, 1987 itself. He was at large for three months thereafter before the making of the detention order and absence of any incident during that period by itself to my mind is sufficient to negative the alleged prejudicial activities. For that reason it cannot be said to be a fit case to resort to preventive detention and the petitioner is also entitled to succeed on said short ground.