S.D.BAJAJ,J - (1.) DURING the period 14th April, 1986 to 22nd October, 1986 detenu-petitioner Daljit Singh was allegedly involved in smuggling arms and ammunitions from Pakistan and, therefore, respondent State clamped upon him the order of detention dated 24th April, 1987 which was admittedly served upon the petitioner on 23rd April, 1987 which was admittedly served upon the petitioner on 23rd January, 1988. Order of detention Annexure P.1 was issued by the respondent under Section 3(1) of the conservation of Foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.
(2.) DETENU -petitioner Daljit Singh has filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 27 of 1989 for quashing the detention order Annexure P.1 based on grounds of detention Annexure P.1/A on the grounds that the petitioner was arrested on the basis of First Information Report No. 150 dated 22nd October, 1986 registered against him under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of the Terrorist Detention and Disruptive (Prevention) Act in Police Station Khalra district Amritsar and thereafter released on bail but the detention order Annexure P.1 was passed by the Detaining Authority against him oblivious of both the facts aforesaid of his initial arrest and later release on bail, that the inordinate delay from 14th April, 1986 to 23rd January, 1988 snaps the link between the alleged prejudicial activity and his belated detention and that the Detaining Authority never applied its mind to the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in his case and, therefore, the order of detention gets vitiated. Factual position regarding arrest of the petitioner on 22nd October, 1986 and his subsequent release on bail by the Designated Court is not disputed. Similarly, it is also conceded that the prejudicial activities attributed to the detenu-petitioner are of the period from 14th April, 1986 to 22nd October, 1986 while the petitioner was actually detained in pursuance of the order Annexure P.1 dated 24th April, 1987 on 23rd January, 1988.
(3.) EXPLANATION for the inordinate delay from 22nd October, 1986 to 23rd January, 1988 furnished in paragraphs 8 and 12 of the reply reads as follows :- "In reply to the contents of this para, it is submitted that test of proximity is not to applied mechanically and if there is reasonable explanation, regarding the time taken in processing the case and in passing the order of detention the nexus remains alive, than the delay in passing the order of detention is not material. Proximity of the prejudicial activities with the detention order is to be determined not from the first prejudicial activity but from the last prejudicial activity which in this case is of 22.10.1986 which lead to the registration of case FIR No. 150 dated 22.10.1986 as mentioned in para No. 4 of the grounds of detention. It took sufficiently long time to complete the investigation of the case, Interrogatory statement of the petitioner was recorded on 26.10.1986, whereas of his co-associate was recorded on 9.11.1986. After completing the investigations of the case, S.P. Anti Smuggling Amritsar sent proposal to SSP Amritsar on 4.12.1986 for detention of the petitioner. At SSP level sufficient time was consumed for processing the maintaining of law and order problem in the District besides attending to other such like cases SSP Amritsar sent the proposal vide his office letter dated 8.1.1987 to D.M. Amritsar who sponsored the same to the State Government vide his office endorsement dated 8.1.1987. Detention proposal was received in the office of the Answering Respondent on 12.1.1987 (10 and 11 January were holidays). Case was processed and examined at various levels from 13.1.1987 to 23.2.1987 (17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 31 January : 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 21 and 22 February were holidays). Grounds of detention were prepared in Punjabi and the same were translated into English. This was quite a voluminous job and consumed sufficient time. Ultimately, this of was completed on 23.2.1987 where the cases was sent to State Law Department on 23.2.1987. Case remained under examination in State Law Department upto 2.3.1987 (26, 28 February and Ist March were holidays) and was ultimately received in the office of the Answering Respondent on 3.3.1987. Case was finally examined and was put up before the competent authority who after due consideration and after applying his mind ordered the detention of the petitioner on 21.4.1987 and formal order of detention was issued on 29.4.1987 (8, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29 March : 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 25 and 26 April were holidays). Number of other similar cases were also processed in the office of the Answering Respondents and each case was dealt with turn. Thus there is no delay in passing the order of detention as the time taken in passing the order of detention stands fully explained." "In reply to the contents of this para, it is submitted that after the passing of detention order, the petitioner went under grounds to evade the execution of detention order. Strenuous efforts were being made to arrest the petitioner and there was every likelihood of his being apprehended at any time, so police authorities did not feel the necessity to invoke the provisions of Section 7 of the COFEPOSA and to make a move for cancellation of the bail. Delay in executing the order of detention was due to going underground of the petitioner to avoid the execution of the order of detention. The detention order could not be termed as punitive." ;