Skip to content


Jagjit Singh Vs. the State of Punjab and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1978CriLJ42
AppellantJagjit Singh
RespondentThe State of Punjab and ors.
Cases ReferredBhut Nath v. State of West Bengal
Excerpt:
.....against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the return it is stated that the grounds of detention were subsisting and the detention was based on good and proper material, that the order was passed bona fide on the evidence available on record and not on account of any extraneous considerations; even in this authority their lordships of the supreme court have observed that the detention is not punitive tout preventive and that simply because the criminal prosecution has failed and that on that ground the detention order is bad, is not a sound proposition, because the purposes of preventive detention are different from conviction and punishment, the subjective..........operation, whichever period expires later.4. he shall be governed, while under detention, by the punjab detenus (conditions of detention) order 1974.3. mr. mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the order of detention was to continue for an indefinite period as mentioned in the detention order which is against the provisions of section 10 of the act- his next contention is that none of the grounds of detention ehows proximity between the offending acts and the order of detention. so far as the first contention is concerned mr. mittal does not press it, because section 10 of the act was later on amended, and albout dhat amendment mr. mittal, had no knowledge earlier. his main contention that now remains is that the grounds alleged show that the detenu had.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ajit Singh Bains, J.

1. Jagjit Singh petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the release of the person of 4iis brother Manmohan Singh Jora, son of Shri Sohan Singh, now con-Bned in the Central Jail, Ferozepore, in consequence of an order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the Act),

2. It is averred in the petition that the detenu was arrested on 21-7-1976, and the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu, vide copy Annexure p. 2 (its English translation is Annexure p 2/a); that the detenu made a representation through the Superintendent of Jail to the Government vide copy Annexure p. 3, that thereafter the aforesaid representation of the detenu was sent to the Advisory Board for its opinion and the detenu also appeared before the said Board, that the Advisory Board approved his detention and that the orders of detention were confirmed for a period of one year from the date of his detention or the period during which the proclamation of Emergency, issued under Clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution, on 3rd December 1971, and the proclamation of Emergency issued under that clause on 25th June, 1975, remained in operation, whichever period expired later. The order of detention, dated 19th October, 1976 (Annexure p. 4) is in the following terms:-

Whereas the Governor of Punjab, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Parliament Act No. 52 of 1974) as amended, passed the order of detention in respect of Sh. Manmohan Singh, son of Sohan Singh, Goldsmith, resident of Sunam, District Sangrur,

2. And whereas the Advisory Board have opined that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the said Sh. Manmohan Singh.

3. Now, therefore, the Governor of punjab, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sub-section (f) of Section 8 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, as amended, hereby confirms the aforesaid order of detention and is pleased to order that the said Sh. Manmohan Singh shall continue to be in detention in the custody of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, in any Jail of the State of Punjab for a period of one year from the date of his detention or during the period during which the Proclamation of Emergency issued under Clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution on the 3rd day of December, 1971, and the proclamation of Emergency issued under that clause on the 25th day of June, 1975 are both in operation, whichever period expires later.

4. He shall be governed, while under detention, by the Punjab Detenus (Conditions of Detention) Order 1974.

3. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the order of detention was to continue for an indefinite period as mentioned in the detention order which is against the provisions of Section 10 of the Act- His next contention is that none of the grounds of detention ehows proximity between the offending acts and the order of detention. So far as the first contention is concerned Mr. Mittal does not press it, because Section 10 of the Act was later on amended, and albout Dhat amendment Mr. Mittal, had no knowledge earlier. His main contention that now remains is that the grounds alleged show that the detenu had allegedly committed some offence in the year, 1974 and that the detention order was passed in the year 1976 after a lapse of two years. A detailed return has been filed on behalf of the State by way of an affidavit of Mr. Amarjit Singh, Deputy Secretary to Government. In paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the return it is stated that the grounds of detention were subsisting and the detention was based on good and proper material, that the order was passed bona fide on the evidence available on record and not on account of any extraneous considerations; and that the grounds of detention were based on the material furnished by the District Magistrate Sangrur. In paragraph H it is mentioned that the adjudication proceedings have since been completed and a penalty imposed on the detenu by the competent Customs authority,

4. MR. I. S. Tiwana, learned Deputy Advocate-General Punjab, has made a statement at the bar that the detenu has been awarded a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- by the Customs Authorities. Mr. Mittal, in support of his contention, has relied upon Bhut Nath v. State of West Bengal AIR 1O4 SC 806 : 1974 Cri LJ690, but this authority is of no avail In the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even in this authority their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that the detention is not punitive tout preventive and that simply because the criminal prosecution has failed and that on that ground the detention order is bad, is not a sound proposition, because the purposes of preventive detention are different from conviction and punishment, the subjective satisfaction being enough in the former while proof beyond reasonable doubt being necessary in the latter. Moreover, this authority is under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, whereas the present case is under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. The present Act was passed in order to curb the smuggling activities because such activities are always shrouded in mystery. It is not one act of the smugglers but a chain of such activities and it is difficult to detect all these activities, i.e. the past activities. The competent authority has satisfied itself and has passed the appropriate order Under Section 3(1) of the Act. It is subjective satisfaction of the authority which has to be seen and the Courts have no jurisdiction to go into the propriety or impropriety of the subjective satisfaction. In the present case I am of the opinion that there was enough material before the competent authority to justify its action in detaining the detenu. Even the proceedings before the Customs authorites have resulted in his conviction, and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed. The object of the Act, as already stated, is to provide for preventive detention in certain cases for the purpose of conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities and for matters connected therewith. So the detentions under the Act are to stand on a different footing. It is a matter of common knowledge that the illegal activities of smuggling have resulted in setting up a parallel black economy, which has paralysed the normal economic conditions of (the country.

5. For the reasons recorded above, I see no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //