JAGTAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 24th December, 1988 detenu-petitioner Jagtar Singh was arrested by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on the allegations of having kept concealed inside Flat No. 293, lZ Area, Gole Market, New Delhi, 210 foreign marked gold biscuits, transported from Amritsar to Delhi in Maruti car No. DBG-7927. While the petitioner was still in judicial custody, confined inside Tihar Jail, New Delhi, detention order Annexure P. 1, based on grounds of detention Annexure P. 2 was served on the petitioner under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended upto date) on 7th January, 1989.

(2.) VALIDITY of the detention order Annexure P. 1 has been assailed by the detenu-petitioner Jagtar Singh in Cr. W. P. No. 705 of 1989 on the grounds that supply of documents asked for by the petitioner having been delayed till 30th March, 1989, the petitioner was prejudiced in exercise of his right to make an effective representation against his detention to the detaining authority and the Advisory Beard, that there was no compelling necessity requiring the making of an order of preventive detention against the petitioner who was already confined in Tihar Jail with effect from 24th December, 1988 when the order of detention came to be passed against him on 17th January, 1989, that consideration of ineffective representation aforesaid filed by the petitioner on 3rd March, 1989 was unduly delayed by the detaining authority for an inordinately long period of 27 days and that the detention order was made without any application of mind much less on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. In reply filed by Shri Kuldip Singh, Under Secretary to Government of India, it was asserted that the detention order Annexure P. 1 was made against the petitioner on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority after due application of mind to the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case that there was no unexplained inordinate delay attributable to the detaining authority in the disposal of the representation because it dealt with and disposed of the same within a week from receipt of the comments from the sponsoring authority on 23rd March, 1989, that it was known to the detaining authority while making the order of detention that the petitioner was already in judicial custody and confined inside Tihar Jail but inspite of it the detaining authority still felt on its subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to make the order of preventive detention against the petitioner because the possibility of his being admitted to bail by the competent court on his application moved for the purpose could not be ruled out and that necessary documents were all supplied the petitioner together with the grounds of detention when the detention order was served upon him inside Tihar Jail

(3.) THE first and foremost ground of attack against the validity of the detention order Annexure P. 1 has been that the petitioner being already in custody with effect from 24th December, 1988, could not possibly indulge in any prejudicial activity thereafter and as such the order of detention dated 17th January, 1989 passed by the detaining authority against him was punitive in nature.