TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PITNDPS Act, 1988,). The petitioner was given the grounds of detention along with the copies of document relied on by the detaining authority along with the detention order. 3. It was alleged in the grounds of detention that on secret information the officers of Varanasi and Delhi units of Narcotic Control Bureau intercepted Shanti Swaroop and A. K. Chaudhary alias P. P. Singh on the night of August 12/13, 1990 at the Indira Gandhi International Airport (Terminal II) New Delhi when they reported for boarding flight No. K.L. 836 to Amsterdam. On search of their baggage, P. P. Singh was found to possess 975 grams of heroin concealed in the false bottom of his shoulder bag. On the basis of statements and disclosures made by these persons, the house of the petitioner, his father and brothers were searched and 855.250 grams of foreign-marked 7 gold biscuits and some incriminating documents were recovered. On search of the petitioner's flat at Varanasi some more documents were recovered. The father and brothers of the petitioner in their statements admitted their involvement in the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenged on several grounds before the High Court, but the learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the detention of the petitioner before us on the following grounds Ground No. 1 (1) That the detaining authority did not apply its mind in passing the detention order dated December 4, 1990. (2) That there was unexplained long delay in the disposal of the representation made by the petitioner. The representation made by the petitioner dated December 22, 1990 was disposed of on January 19, 1991 and communicated to him on January 25, 1991 and this long delay of 33 days remains unexplained. 6. We shall consider the arguments advanced in respect of the above grounds in seriatim. As regards the first ground Mr. R. K. Jain, learned senior counsel adverted our attention to ground No. 21 of the grounds of detention order which reads as under Even though prosecution proceedings under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are likely to be initiated against you, I am satisfied that there is compelling necessity, in view of the likelihood of your indulging in illicit traffic of Narcotic Drugs as is evident from the trend of your activities, to detain you ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s never executed nor the detenu had been brought from District Jail, Ghazipur to the concerned court at Varanasi. In these circumstances, when the petitioner was not taken into custody under the Crime Case No. 195 of 1990 under the NDPS Act, 1985 and continued to remain in District Jail at Ghazipur in Crime Case No. 402 of 1990 under the Arms Act and Motor Vehicles Act till the passing of the detention order on December 4, 1990, there was nothing wrong in mentioning in the grounds of order of detention that the prosecution proceedings under NDPS Act, 1985 are likely to be initiated against the petitioner. It is no doubt correct that the word likely used in the grounds of detention may not be fully appropriate but this cannot be meant that the detaining authority was not aware of the case pending under NDPS Act, 1985 at Varanasi. We are satisfied with the explanation given by the learned Additional Solicitor General in this regard that till the warrant of arrest issued by the Varanasi Court was executed and the petitioner was brought and produced before the concerned court at Varanasi, the detaining authority was justified in considering that the prosecution proceedings under NDPS A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order of detention. The voluminous record available with the detaining authority showed that the petitioner was engaged in illicit traffic in the purchase, sale, possession and abetting the export of Narcotic Drugs in the city of Varanasi which is an area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic. There was enough material for the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the petitioner and his family were engaged in the clandestine business of preparing and selling heroin for export from India. Ground No. 2 10. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted the representation on December 22, 1990, but it was disposed of on January 25, 1991 and this shows the callousness and the causal manner in which the authorities acted in dealing with the liberty of a citizen. There can be no manner of doubt that if the delay remains unexplained leading to the conclusion that the conduct of the authorities in this regard amounted to inaction, callousness or slackness then the detenu is entitled to be released. However, the question of delay depends on the facts of each case. This argument was made before the High Court also, and the same was dealt in d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Joint Secretary, Finance, Government of India on December 27, 1990. Regarding the second set of dates, according to the respondents it was dispatched on January 1, 1991 by post from Delhi and was only received in Varanasi on January 10, 1991. From a perusal of the letter dated January 11, 1991 sent back along with the comment annexed a reference was made that in future, representation be sent by speed post to avoid delay. The delay could only be on account of it being sent by ordinary post and not speed post. Further according to learned counsel for the respondent the delay of delivery by ordinary post would only be on account of riots during that period in Varanasi. However, on the aforesaid facts and circumstances and on perusal of the original record we do not find that any inference of slackness callousness, conclusion, inaction or leisurely treatment of the petitioner's representation is made out. On the facts of this case we come to the conclusion that it cannot be held that there was any delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner. 11. We are fully in agreement with the above observations of the High Court and find no valid reason to take a diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter was issued on May 11, 1992 to Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi asking for further detailed comments so that the representation could be considered thoroughly and appropriately. 4. The detailed comments were forwarded by Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi vide their letter dated May 15, 1992 and the same were received in the PITNDPS Cell on May 20, 1992. Since there were two sets of comments with reference to the petition these were thoroughly examined on May 21 and 22, 1992 May 23 and 24, 1992 being holidays these were submitted with a detailed note on May 25, 1992 and the Hon'ble Finance Minister rejected the representation on May 26, 1992. 5. Vide our memorandum dated May 27, 1992 the detenu was intimated about the result of the representation through the Superintendent, Central Jail Agra, which was receive by the petitioner on June 2, 1992. Though apparently this office has taken one month, the fact is that the representation was given a thorough consideration in consultation with the sponsoring authority twice. Further, one has to take into consideration the time taken in transit. As such there has been no delay at any state and the representation has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
