AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Writ Petition No. 1851 of 1988 his been filed by the detenu Gurnam Singh for quashing the detention order Annexure P.2 dated 17-3-1988 on the grounds that he was held in custody With effect from 14-12-1986 and could not, therefore, indulge in any prejudicial activities thereafter, that at the time of his alleged release from Raipur Jail on 12-1-1988, custody of the petitioner was made over by the Raipur Jail Authorities to Inspector Jaimal Singh of Gurdaspur police in Punjab State for investigation of First Information Report No. 122 dated 30-8-1986 registered against the petitioner in Police Station, Dera baba Nanak, under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, section 15 of the Arms Act, sections 3/34/20 of the Indian Police Act and sections 3 and 4 the T.D.A. (P) Act, that clamping of the impugned order of detention on the petitioner on 17-3-1988 while he was still in custody from 14-12-1986 onwards is wholly mechanical and without any application of mind by the detaining authorirty that there was no proximity between the alleged occurrence. of 30. 8. 1986 and the detention order of 17-3-1986 and that the impugned order is wholly mechanical passed without any application of mind by the detaining authority; much less its subjective satisfaction.

(2.) IN reply the State asserted that co-accused of the detenu in case First Information Report No. 122 dated 30-8-1986 named Kuldip Singh and Joginder Singh had disclosed to the police about the involvement of the petitioner therein only in November, 1987 and, therefore, the impugned detention order was validly passed on 17-3-1988, that the detention order was passed by the detaining authority on its subjective satisfaction after due application of mind and the special grounds justifying further detention of the petitioner for a period of two years beyond 17.3.1988 were duly mentioned in Annexure P.3 (grounds of detention) supplied to the petitioner along with detention order Annexure P.2. It was, thus asserted that there was no justifiable reason to quash the order of detention.

(3.) THE myth of the detaining authority having applied its mind or of its subjective satisfaction gets wholly exposed from the contents of the note recorded by the dealing Assistant Amrik Singh in this case on 16.9.1988 which reads :