JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has ben filed for quashing detention order dated 1.2.1994 (Annexure P-6) and grounds of detention dated 1.2.1994 (Annexure P-7) passed against the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short, the 1974 Act).
2. Briefly, the facts as stated in the petition are that on 17.6.1993, petitioner, who is President of Goldsmith Association, Bazar Sarafan, Ludhiana and doing the business of making ornaments along with his brother, Surinder Dhir in Bazar Sarafan for the last 14 years, was taken from his shop by the officials of the Customs department on the plea that Superintendent of Customs wants his services in the execution of a raid to be conducted at three shops in the market. Later on, he was made to sit in the Customs car and then detained in illegal custody for three days and given beatings by the Customs officials. It has further been stated that petitioner’s statement was recorded under torture, duress and by using third-degree method. He was forced to sign/thumb-mark the plain papers, while the Customs officials put the date of his arrest as 18.6.1993. Telegrams in regard to illegal detention were sent to the Collector, Customs, Chandigarh, President of India, S.S.P. Ludhiana and C.J.M. Ludiana, and it is only thereafter when the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, called for a report from the Deputy Collector, Excise, that the petitioner was produced before him by the Customs officials on 20.6.1993. On that very day, the Chief Judicial Magistrate remanded the petitioner to judicial custody. Thereafter, on an application moved on behalf of the petitioner, he was allowed bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge on 15.7.1993. After his release, petitioner sent representations to the President of India, Finance Minister, Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh, through registered post, giving details of the occurrence and treatment meted out to him at the hands of Customs officials. Copy of the said representation, running into four pages, has been annexed as Annexure P-4 to the petition. It has further been stated that Customs Authority issued Show Cause Notice dated 10.12.1993 to the petitioner, which was replied to in writing, and it was only on 21.2.1994 when the petitioner was detained under order dated 1.2.1994 passed under Section 3(1) of the 1974 Act. On detention, petitioner was served with the detention order and the grounds of detention, accompanied by documents. Petitioner then sent representations to the Secretary, Home, State of Punjab, through Superintendent Central Jail, and to the Central Government, through Superintendent Central Jail, on 28.2.1994 and 12.3.1994 respectively. Quashing of the detention order has been sought on the ground that the material documents which had a vital bearing on the case were not placed before the detaining Authority and that resulted in non-application of mind. Quashing has also been sought on the ground that the detaining Authority did not apply its mind while framing the grounds of detention, but had copied them from the grounds taken in the Dossier prepared by the Customs Authorities. The other ground taken for quashment is that representation sent to the Central Government has not been considered by it.
3. Upon notice of the petition, respondent No. 1, i.e. State of Punjab, has filed reply, in which it has been stated that all material documents having a bearing on the case were taken into consideration by the detaining Authority at the time of passing detention order against the petitioner. Allegation that grounds of detention are verbatim copy of the grounds taken in the Dossier prepared by the Customs Authorities, has also been denied. In the reply on behalf of respondent No. 2, i.e. Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, it has been stated that petitioner had not made any representation to the Central Government and the representation sent to the State Government was considered and rejected. Respondent No. 3, i.e. Union of India, in its reply, has stated that no representation was ever received by the Central Government and, therefore, question of considering the same does not arise.
4. Taking the first submission, namely that the detaining Authority has not taken into consideration the material documents at the time of passing detention order, the petitioner has stated in the petition that he was arrested on 17.6.1993, though respondents have stated that he was arrested on 18.6.1993. On his release on bail, he made representation (Annexure P-4) to the President of India, Finance Minister and Collector, Customs, by registered post in which he gave the details and manner in which and how he was arrested or made to sign the blank papers, and how he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, despite the fact that no document or gold or any incriminating papers were found in his possession. Though respondent No. 1 in the reply has stated that all material documents were taken into consideration, but from the record now produced for perusal of this Court, I find that the representation, although has been stated to have been considered, does not form part of the annexures which were sent for proposal of the detaining Authority. More so, the telegram which was sent by the brother of the petitioner, as also the Medico-Legal Report submitted by the doctor on the directions of Chief Judicial Magistrate, while petitioner was in custody, showing the injuries, namely, (i) contused swelling, 6″ × 4″ on back and medial half of left hip, (ii) contused swelling, 5″ × 4″ on back of medial half of right hip, & (iii) contused swelling 1″ × ½” radial dorsem of right wrist”, on the person of the petitioner, also do not form part of the record. All these three documents were very vital documents and had a bearing on the case. In the representation, confessional statements made by him were retracted and this was at the first available opportunity when he was released from judicial custody. It may also be noticed at this stage that one Manjit Singh (from whom recovery was made and appears to be principal accused) has fairly conceded, as mentioned in para 2.1 of grounds of detention that he had sold gold biscuits to different persons, namely Kaku and Veeru of Adinath Jewellers, Sarjeevan Dhir @ Pappu, Surinder Dhir @ Shinda of M/s Basant Jewellers, Sultani Ram of M/s Standard Jewellers (later on identified as M/s Society Jewellers) and to Inder Malhotra, his partner, Ashok Bhandari and also one Palwinder Singh. The detention order against the petitioner is primarily based upon the statement of Manjit Singh, but apart from the petitioner, no other person named by him was either arrested or detention order was passed against the said persons. In this view of the matter, the representation made by the petitioner at the earliest opportunity that he was detained on 17.6.1993, assumes importance as it would have influenced the mind of the detaining Authority in one way or the other. Since, admittedly the aforesaid vital documents were not placed before the detaining Authority, it must be held that there was non-application of mind. This petition too deserves to succeed on the ground that grounds of detention are a verbatim copy of grounds of Dossier prepared by the Customs Authorities. In order to ascertain as to whether grounds of detention are a verbatim copy of the grounds of dossier, the records were called for, and on comparison of grounds of detention with that of grounds of dossier prepared by the Customs Authorities (forming part of proposal sent by the detaining Authority), it is abundantly clear that all what the detaining Authority has done is to change the first three words “in his statement” into “in your statement”. Likewise, word “he” into “you” has been changed. Thereafter, word for word, the dossier is repeated and me word “his” wherever it occurs referring to the petitioner, has been changed into “you” in the grounds of detention. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the detention order has been passed in a very casual, indifferent and routine manner. The Supreme Court in Jai Singh and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir , quashed the detention order on the ground that grounds of detention were verbatim reproduction of dossier submitted by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Udhampur, to the District Magistrate, requesting that detention order may be issued. In this case too, as noticed, the grounds of detention are a verbatim copy of grounds of dossier prepared by the Customs Authorities. Thus, in these circumstances, order of detention qua the petitioner cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed.
5. Consequently, this petition stands allowed with no order as to costs. Respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith.