SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India read with S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to quashment of impugned detention order dated 31-5-1988 (Annexure-P-1 ), which was served on the petitioner on 18-6-1988.

(2.) The aforesaid detention order was passed by Under Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Home Department, under S.3(3) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (52 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that the detenu at the instance of one Amrik Singh, a known smuggler brought 50 packets of heroin with the help of his three-co-villagers who acted as carriers and handed over the said heroin to Bhira a truck driver of his village in 3rd week of September, 1987 and received Rs. 9,000/- from him. Out of the said amount detenu paid Rs. 2,000/- each to the aforesaid three co-villagers, who had acted as carriers, and retained the remaining amount. On the night intervening 11th and 12th of November, 1987, detenu again smuggled 150 packets each containing 1 kg of heroin from Pakistan through one Sultan Singh and after reaching his village the detenu along with one Ghasita Singh of his village was intercepted by the police of Police-Station, Lopake District, Amritsar, while they were transporting those packets of heroin in the tractor of said Ghasita Singh and the recovery of the aforesaid heroin was effected by the said police, The detenu along with other co-accused was able to escape. About midnight of 23-12-1987 the detenu and Ghasita Singh were bringing 17 packets of heroin from Pakistan and they were apprehended by the police. In this connection case FIR No. 255 dated 24-12-1987 under S.411/414, I.P.C., S.3 of the Official Secrets Act, S.14 Foreigners and S.22/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, was registered against the detenu in the police-station, Lopike, District Amritsar. Detention order was accordingly passed with a view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in smuggling and other prejudicial activities in future.

(3.) Counsel for the parties were heard.