TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the writ petition by its judgment dated July 21, 1992. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court. 2. The detention order is founded on four incidents which took place between June 2, 1990 and September 13, 1991. The detention order was served on the detenu on April 3, 1992 itself. The learned Counsel for the detenu challenged the order of detention, before us, on the following grounds: (1) There was inordinate delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the Central Government and as such the detenu was denied the right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. According to the learned Counsel the representation was submitted on April 24, 1992 and the rejection was communicated to him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1992. On 5-5-1992 Central Government sent a wireless message to the State Government to furnish some vital information. This vital information was received by the Central Government on 20-5-1992. After considering this vital information and the parawise comments the Central Government took decision to reject the same on 28-5-1992. The decision was communicated to the jail authority by wireless message followed by a communication dated 4-6-1992. Mr. Gupta urged that in the first place there was delay of about 15 days on the part of the State Government or the detaining authority to forward the parawise comments. It covers the period between 5-5-1992 to 20-5-1992. He then urged that despite the receipt of the information and the parawise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28 of the affidavit of the detaining authority dated 4-7-1992). These parawise comments were received by the Central Government on 20-5-1992. In view of these dates we are of the opinion that the first contention relating to the delay of 15 days between 5-5-1992 and 20-5-1992 has no merits. Coming to the lag of delay between 20-5-1992 and 28-5-1992, Mr. Ishwar Singh in paragraph 7 of his affidavit-in-reply has stated that the representation along with material was put to before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, on 21-5-1992 who after careful consideration with his comments put up the same before the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 22-5-1992. The said Special Secretary after processing the material and represe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. What is required to be seen is as to whether detenu has revived his prejudicial activities after his release. If the dates of these 4 incidents are taken into account it is quite clear that the detenu again resorted back to the same prejudicial activities and he was involved inasmuch as 3 Indian Penal Code cases out of which one relates to an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IP Code. The last incident took place on 13-9-1991. He was found absconding and came to the first arrested on 21-12-1991. He was shown arrested on 30-12-1991 and charge-sheet in this behalf was filed on 31-1-1992. Apart from this the detenu was released on bail in incident No. 4(d) on 3-4-1992. If the chain of prejudicial activities is taken into accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
