JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal writ petition is filed to quash the order of detention passed by the 1st respondent dated 9.7.1998 and the order dated 19.4.1999 passed by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The petitioner was arrested in a criminal case registered for the offences under Sections 411 and 414 I.P.C. and also under the Arms Act and under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 in case F.I.R. No. 52 dated 4.4.1997, P.S. Lopoke, District Amritsar, but no incriminating article was recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, the State Government passed an order of detention dated 9.7.1998 (vide Annexure P-1) under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. In pursuance of the order of detention, the petitioner was arrested on 15.7.1999. The petitioner was supplied the copy of the order on 9.11.1998. Then he gave a representation on 19.11.1998. The 2nd respondent namely Union of India rejected the representation of the petitioner on 22.2.1999. Thereafter the case was put up before the Advisory Board which opined that there was sufficient cause to continue the detention of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was only arrested on 9.6.1997 and the order of detention was passed after the lapse of more than one year and no other case has been registered against the petitioner-accused and even in F.I.R. No. 52 of 4.4.1997, P.S. Lopoke, District Amritsar, no charge-sheet has been filed and there was no material before the authorities for passing the order of detention. The learned Counsel further contended that the order of detention is liable to be set aside because of delay in executing the same. Further, according to the learned Counsel, the petitioner was arrested on 15.7.1998 without supplying the copy of the order and the copy of the order was supplied to the petitioner only on 9.11.1998. Therefore, the order of detention on the ground of non- supply of the copy of the order is liable to be quashed.