1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner namely, Shiv Paul Shiarma alias Paloo has challenged Older No. 6/PSA dated March 23,1996 whereby his personal liberty has been curtailed for two years. The said order has been passed under the provisions of the J&K PSA of 1978 (herein after referred as Act).

It has been contended that the order does not specify the period of detention and it was never served upon the petitioner. The order was based upon the allegations made in F.I.R. No. 44/95 (registered in the police station, Samba) which after investigation conducted by the police could not be substantiated and the petitioner was given the benefit of Section 169 of Cr.P.C. The other ground that the petitioner had worked as a trans-border courier of arms for Pak Intelligence outfit (ISI) has now become stale and could not be made the basis for passing the impugned order. Lastly, it is pleaded that the order was passed without any subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

2. Heard the arguments.

3. The contention that the impugned order did not contain the period for which he was to be detained is belied from the official record as the order contains a recital that he had been detained for two years. The other assertion of the learned counsel regarding the non-service of the detention order also does not survive as the order was served upon him on July 19,1996. Undoubtedly, he was taken into custody by the police in connection with registration of F.I.R. No. 44/95 for the commission of offence under Sections 4/5 of the ESA read with Section 307 RPC and later on released under Section 169 Cr.P.C., yet it cannot be said that this investigation can interfere with the vires of detention order in question as the passing of the order had no direct or casual connection with the police investigation/The detaining authority had to perform its functions independently under the provisions of the Act and not under other laws. The receipt dated 19.7.1996 executed by the detenue shows that copy of the grounds of detention were read over and explained in Urdu language which he had understood. He was also informed to make a representation to the Govt. Further, the record shows that on 13.9.1996, he was produced before the J&K Advisory Board where he was personally heard and order in question was confirmed.

4. The petitioner has been detained as being a trans-border smuggler of gold and arms from Pakistan. As many as 49 pistols had been recovered from his field on a discovery statement made by him to the security forces. These arms had been smuggled for their use by different militant outfits engaged in armed insurgency in the State. This recovery was taken as a cogent proof of the detenue™s involvement in smuggling of illicit arms from Pakistan. A person who can bargain with the security of his country for a few chips of money is more dangerous than a militant wielding a gun in his hands. These recovered arms could at least arm 49 anti-national to carry out their secessionist and subversive activities disturbing the public order and jeopardizing the security of the State. This solitary incident could be a reasonable basis for the detaining authority to pass appropriate order as the preventive detention is founded on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct judged in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Such a past act may consist of one single act or of series of acts. It must be of serious nature that an inference can reasonably be drawn from it that the person concerned would be likely to repeat such act. In the present case, the recovery of 49 pistols at the behest of the petitioner in itself is of alarming nature to warrant his detention and by no reasoning it can be termed as stale or inconsequential. In these circumstances, the detaining authority was justified in drawing the inference of his being a risk to the maintenance of public order and ultimately to the security of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document