9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention order is 6th February, 2001. There is thus a delay of more than six months in passing the detention order. There is also a delay in execution of the detention order dated 10th August, 2001 which was served on the petitioner some time on 11th September, 2001 though he was available at his address. Petitioner's claim is that there is even a delay of 11 days in dispatching the detention order and further delay of 20 days in serving the same. Another ground alleged by the petitioner is hat Detaining Authority is bound to supply the grounds of detention within five days of his detention. The petitioner was served with unsigned copies of the grounds of detention and this cannot be taken to be communicating the grounds of detention in law. The representation of the petitioner is also stated to have not been considered and documents supplied were illegible. Lastly, it has been asserted that there is suppression of relevant material from the Detaining Authority. After the alleged seizure of 6th February, 2001 the Department of Revenue Intelligence i.e. Detaining Authority had issued orders whereby import of Shivalik Impex Pvt. Ltd. as well as Shiv Ganga Organic Chemical Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Authority had passed the order on 10.8.2001. It is even denied that there was any delay in execution of the order. ( 4. ) FIRST argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard was that the grounds of detention conveyed to the petitioner were not signed and therefore in the eyes of law the grounds of detention had not been communicated and it prevented the petitioner from making an effective representation. According to the learned Counsel, in this process his right enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution have been violated. On the contrary, this argument was answered with vehemence by arguing that only the grounds of detention has to be communicated. It is not a part of the provisions that it has to be signed and therefore there is no right of the petitioner which he can claim to have been violated. The admitted position in law is that preventive detention is an invasion of personal liberty but this scheme has been envisaged by the founding fathers and has the Constitution sanction. The constitutionality of the same is not to be disputed. It is also an admitted fact that the grounds of detention have to be communicated to the petitioner a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time of submissions were that there was undue delay in passing of the detention order and that there was undue delay in execution of the detention order. ( 7. ) THE detention order is of 10.8.2001 and the incident is of 6.2.2001. It is this particular fact, which was urged to bring home the contention that there is undue delay in passing of the order. Some of the other relevant facts can also be stated. THE petitioner was arrested on 6.2.2001. He made retraction from earlier statement on 17.2.2001. His bail application was rejected by the Trial Court on 24.4.2001 and by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 4.5.2001. He was admitted to jail on 4.6.2001 by this Court. The reply indicates that after the incident of 6.2.2001, the investigation had continued and proposal including the non-bailable warrants pertaining to the co-accused, namely Kishan Chand Gupta, had been sent to the Department. The co-accused (petitioner in Cri.W. 64/02) had an important and significant role in the entire operation. It was necessary to wait for the availability of the co-accused for a reasonable period before the proposal could be submitted.. The proposal was submitted on 12.6.2001. The Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... test is applied to the facts of the present case, it is obvious that though there is some delay but the nexus as such had not been broken. They were waiting as the matter was under investigation and some delay in this regard had occurred. The delay is not such inordinate to prompt us to say that the order is required to be quashed. However, the main argument is this regard is that there has been delay in execution of the order. Though the order had been passed on 10.8.2001, it was executed only on 11.9.2001. The explanation offered for this delay is that it could not be served on the petitioner as the petitioner was not available. ( 9. ) OUR attention has been drawn towards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shafiq Ahmad v. District Magistrate, Meerut and Others, JT 1989 (3) SC 659. The Supreme Court had held that preventive detention is a serious inroad into the freedom of individuals. Reasons, purposes and the manner of such detention must, therefore, be subject to closer scrutiny and examination by Courts. In the cited case, from 15.4.1988 to 12.5.1988 no attempt was made to contact or arrest the said petitioner and the order was quashed. This principle had b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
