Pyari Ambalal Dave vs State of Maharashtra and Others

S.K. Desai, Acting C.J.

The detenu will have to be released, in our opinion, on the simple ground of delay in passing the order of detention.

The incident, which resulted in the detention order, occurred on 19th December, 1987 on which date the detenu was accosted near Chandanwadi Crematorium ,and from a cloth bag he was carrying, six gold biscuits were recovered. According to the detenu, these six gold biscuits had been given to the detenu by one Bipin for transporting them from Ghatkopar to Sonapur Lane. This Bipin was to travel behind the detenu and was subsequently to meet the detenu at Sonapur Lane where he was to collect the cloth bag with its contents. Needless to say that no further particulars about Bipin were made available by the detenu and Bipin could not, therefore, be detained. The order of detention is dated 12th September 1988. It was served on the detenu on 27th September 1988.

It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, that there is no sufficient reason given for this delay. We have been shown a list of documents. The last of the documents placed before the detaining authority appears to be the memorandum issued u/s 124 of the Customs Act. which is one dated 3rd February 1988. We find no reason why the proposal then was submitted as late as on 1lth May 1988. Even between 1lth May 1988 and the date of the order of detention, which is 12th September 1988, there is needless delay. The reasons furnished for this delay of four months is that documents No. 11 and 12 were received by the detaining authority in June 1988. However, there is no reason offered as to why the sponsoring authority did not send these documents along with the proposal in May 1988. Document No. 11 is a test report of the Mint indicating the purity of the gold. This test report is dated 30th December 1987. The next is the Certificate issued by the Customs which indicates that the detenu obtained bail on 8th January 1988 and had availed of the same. The date of the Certificate, in our opinion, is thoroughly irrelevant. The bail was granted to the detenu and availed of by him in January 1988. Surely in May 1988, there was sufficient time, for the sponsoring authority to furnish these documents to the detaining authority. If further delay was caused by reason of failure to supply these documents, then it would not follow that there is no delay. The incident has clearly become stale. The cause of the delay is not only at the door of the sponsoring authority, but also at the door of the detaining authority. In the instant case, there is delay at every stage. This was not the matter which required four months'' time for consideration and even after June 1988, the two documents belatedly furnished did not require consideration of further two months to ensure any order of detention to be passed.

Since we are convinced that there is unnecessary delay, we have to regard the incident as totally stale. Once so regarded, it cannot constitute the proper basis for the order of detention passed in Sept. 1988. Hence Rule has to be made absolute. We make the Rule absolute accordingly. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with some other matter.