AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Writ No. 1690 of 1988 has been filed by Ajit Singh detenu for quashing the detention order No. MA/11717 passed by the District Magistrate, Amritsar, against him on December 21, 1987, Annexure P-1. The grounds alleged for claiming the desired relief are that the petitioner was already in jail with effect from November 26, 1987, on the basis of F.I.R. No. 37 dated March 10, 1987 registered against him in Police Station Valtoha, district Amritsar, under sections 41, 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act when the impugned order of detention was clamped upon him; that the order of detention was passed in a mechanical manner, without any application of mind; much less any subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority; that the petitioner was detained along with one Amrik Singh of Thathi Jaimal district Amritsar on indentical grounds; that the detention order in respect of Amrik Singh aforesaid was reovked vide order No. 414-2H III (NSA)-88/3570 dated June 16, 1988, but this aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by the detaing authority while confirming the detention of the petitioner. Hence the impugned order being in every way illegal is required to be quashed.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 in their replies filed on October 27, 1988, and November 14, 1988, respectively, urged that the impugned order of detention was passed by the detaining authority after due application of mind on its subjective satisfaction and that different action was taken in the two cases of the petitioner and Amrik Singh on the basis of different advice tendered by the Advisory Board.

(3.) PARA 3 of the detention order Annexure P-1 reads that this order has been passed by me being conscious of the fact that Ajit Singh is already in judicial custody in the cases registered against him. Ajit Singh is taking steps to get himself released from the custody and there is every likelihood of his being set at liberty, and in that event he is likely to indulge in prejudicial activities in view of his prima facie propensity towards such activities and thus there is compelling necessity to pass the detention order against him though he is in judicial custody at present.