1990 (5) TMI 240 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Staleness of the detention order.
2. Delay in passing the detention order.
3. Non-issuance of preventive detention against a similarly involved individual.
4. Non-supply of relevant documents affecting the right to effective representation.
5. Delay in arresting the detenu and serving the detention order.
6. Delay in disposing of the representation made by the detenu.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Staleness of the Detention Order:
The petitioner argued that the detention order dated December 20, 1989, was based on an incident from July 19, 1989, making it stale. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the statements recorded u/s 108 of the Customs Act clearly implicated the petitioner in the transportation of narcotic drugs. The Court found no merit in the claim of non-application of mind by the detaining authority.

2. Delay in Passing the Detention Order:
The petitioner contended that the delay of five months in passing the detention order rendered it illegal. The Court held that the delay was justified as the Customs Department needed time to receive and consider the chemical examination reports of the seized narcotic drugs. The detention order was passed with promptitude considering all relevant facts.

3. Non-Issuance of Preventive Detention Against Similarly Involved Individual:
The petitioner argued that no preventive detention order was passed against C.P. Reddy, who was similarly involved. The Court did not find this argument persuasive, as the detaining authority had sufficient grounds to detain the petitioner based on the evidence available.

4. Non-Supply of Relevant Documents:
The petitioner claimed that the non-supply of the bail application and the order rejecting it affected his right to effective representation u/s Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The Court found this ground untenable, as the rejection of the bail application was not considered by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention.

5. Delay in Arresting the Detenu and Serving the Detention Order:
The petitioner argued that the delay in arresting him and serving the detention order indicated a lack of genuine apprehension. The Court noted that the petitioner had absconded and evaded arrest, which explained the delay. The Court cited precedents to support that such delay does not vitiate the detention order if adequately explained.

6. Delay in Disposing of the Representation:
The petitioner contended that the delay of one month in disposing of his representation made his continued detention illegal. The Court found that the representation was processed promptly and rejected after due consideration. The counter-affidavit filed by the Under Secretary was deemed sufficient to explain the delay.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the detention order was upheld as valid and in accordance with the law. The Court found no merit in any of the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner.