MUNI LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal writ petition the challenge is made to the order of detention dated 4-11-1996 passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, New Delhi under the Customs Act.

(2.) On 17th May,1996, a truck bearing No. DLITG-3664 was intercepted and it was found that the truck contained 87 packets of Dalchini, 250 packages of bearings, 8 packeges of blankets, 7 packages of Halogen lamps and one package of water pump. The said articles were recovered and the petitioner, who was present at the place where the truck was parked namely inside Aggarwal Warehouse, was questioned. According to the petitioner, the statement said to have been voluntarily tendered by him was recorded. Further according to him the said statement was the result of the torture and he was falsely implicated in the case and he was arrested on 18-5-1996 and produced before the Duty Magistrate on 19-5-1996 before whom he said that he did not give any voluntary statement and he was forced to give such a statement as alleged by the Custom authorities. Thereafter he was kept in judicial custody till 18-7-1996. As no challan was filed within a period of 60 days, the petitioner was released on bail from the judicial custody. Thereafter the petitioner came to know that a detention order was passed on 4-11-1996 without any justification or resonable cause. The order of detention was challenged before this Court on the following grounds :- (1) That there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention thereby rendering it unconstitutional and illegal. (2) That there is also a delay in executing the order. Therefore the order of detention is liable to be quashed.

(3.) It is further contended that there is violation of Sec. 3 (5) of the Customs Act inasmuch as the grounds on which the detention order has been passed have not been supplied within three months as required. The delay in this case in passing the order of detention is six months. It has been emphasised in S. K. Serajul v. State of West Bengal (1975 (2) SCC 78) that the order of detention should be passed at the earliest so that the link or in other words the purpose to stop such a notorious activity is estopped. The principle that there should be no delay in passing the order of detention has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Mahaarashtra (AIR 1982 S. C. 8) (1982 Cri. L. J. 150). In Shiv Ratan Makim v. Union of India (AIR 1986 S. C. 610) , the Supreme Court observed that no hard and fast rule can be made, but the order of detention should be passed at the earliest and that there should be reasonable explanation to justify the delay. In Yogendra Murari v. State of U. P. (AIR 1988 S. C. 1835) it has been held that the order of detention should be passed without delay. The same view was taken again in Smt. K. Aruna Kumari v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (1988 (1) S. C. C. 296, 1988 Cri. L. J. 411).