ABDUL HANAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DETENU-PETITIONER Abdul Hanan, was arrested at Amritsar while coming from Pakistan on 21-9-1988 and lodged in the Central Jail at Amritsar. Thereafter the detenu-petitioner was transferred to Central Jail, Patiala, from Amritsar. The charges levelled against the petitioner were under Section 110 of Customs Act, Section 3 (a) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, Section 8 of the Gold Control Act and Section 13-A of FERA 1973. While the petitioner was still in jail, detention order Annexure P-1 based on the solitary incident of 21-9-1988 incorporated in the grounds of detention Annexure P-2 was clamped upon him. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 250 of 1989, the detenu-petitioner has challenged his detention On the grounds that his representation dated 23-10-1988 was not decided by the Detaining Authority with due promptitude as envisaged in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and that the accusation against him obtaining in the order of detention Annexure P-1 was obviously without basis because, in the grounds of detention Annexure P-2, only a single transaction had been attributed to him. According to detenu-petitioner, the Detaining Authority had not applied its mind to the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in his case and, therefore, the order of detention Annexure P-1 could not be said to have been passed on its subjective satisfaction. The facts adverted to in this behalf are that the petitioner as also his two co-accused in Smt. Mehtab Begum and Smt. Shamim had applied for and were granted bail before the passing of the detention order and that this relevant material was not brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority.

(2.) IN reply filed by Shri Ram Partap, Assistant Collector (Legal) of the Central Excise Collectorate, Chandigarh, it was conceded that the order of detention was based on a single transaction of 21-9-1988 and it was asserted, without disclosing relevant facts of the date of its receipt and rejection, that the representation put in by the detenu-petitioner was expeditiously considered by the Detaining Authority. After ascertaining the information aforesaid from the quarters concerned, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India Mrs. Jaishree Anand stated that the representation received by the Detaining Authority from the detenu-petitioner on 30-11-1988 was rejected on 30-12-1988. It was, therefore, conceded that the representation remained pending for consideration for full one month (30 days ). It was also admitted that Shrimati Mehtab Begum and Shrimati Shamim were granted bail but it was asserted that the same does not affect the case of the petitioner at all

(3.) I have heard Shri H. S. Mattewal, Senior Advocate, with Shri Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner; Mrs. Jaishree Anand, Advocate, for the respondents; and have carefully perused the record.