Supreme Court of India
HARNEK SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS
- Decided
- 9 December 1981
- Judges listed
- A.D. KOSHAL
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1982] 2 S.C.R. 139 · 1981 INSC 201
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
KosHAL J. In this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, the prayer made by the petitoner is that his brother, Narinder Singh, who has been detained in pursuance of an order dated 4th November, 1980 passed under sub-sec. (1) cf sec. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 be released from custody. The main ground urged in support of the petition is that there is no nexus between the unlawful activities attributed to the detenu and his incarceration. That ground we do not find to be without sub!1tance. A case covering offences under sections 307, 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, amongst others, was registered against the detenu at Police Station Lopoke in Amritsar district on 27th February, 1980 and those offences are the only acts which form th(: basis of the impugned order Those acts are also the subject-matter of a prosecution launched against the detenu, proceedings in relation to which have been going on in the Court of an Amritsar Magistrate. During those proceedings the detenu was on bail and was appearing in court on every hearing right from January 2, 1981 till he was put behind the bars on 10th July, 1981 in pursuance of the impugned order. We are clearly of the opinion that offenc:es which are said. to have been committed by the detenu as far back as 27th February, 1980 could hardly form a ground for his detiention on a date as late as 10th July, 1981, the gap between the two being well-nigh a year and a half. No explanation at all has been furnished on behalf of the State as to why action under the Act was not taken at the earliest possible after the alleged commission of the offences which are the foundation of the grounds for detention. In our opinion, the charge is so stale in relation to the dete:ntion as not to have any real connection with it. It is further noteworthy that no reason is put forward for the detenu not being taken in custody in pursuance of the impugned order (for which the detaining authority was moved in the first instance by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar)
p. 140, margin B
HARNEK SINGH v. (Koshal, i.) i41 right form January 2, 1981 till July 10, 1981 although he appeared in Court on all the dates of hearing fixed by the Magistrate during that period. In these circumstances the detention takes the character of punitive rather than preventive action and is therefore vitiated. Accordingly we strike down the impugned order and direct that the detenu be released from custody forthwith. N.V.K. Petition allowed.
p. 141