Back
High Court Of Delhi
DHARMAPAL VERMA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 1346 of 2001
Decided On : 10/11/2002
Held:
The detaining authority did not pass the order mechanically or without application of mind. Facts do justify the detention. The statement of the co-accused or co-detenu in this case, also involve the petitioner in the sale of heroin for the last several years. This shows that if released, he would again indulge in drug trafficking. The petitioner had applied for the bail on 28th May, 2001 which was rejected on 1st June, 2001. He again applied for bail in the High Court on 6th June, 2001 which was rejected on 16th June, 2001. Though when the detention order was passed on 24th August, 2001 both the bail applications had been rejected, yet the fact that his wife got interim bail on medical ground justified the detaining authoritys conclusion that there was likelihood of his getting bail. In fact, the applications for grant of bail and the interim bail application and the documents supplied to the petitioner were before the detaining authority at the time of passing the detention order. This itself was sufficient material for the detaining authority to form an opinion that there was likelihood of his being released and if released he would indulge in drug trafficking. In view of the same the order passed by the detaining authority while he was in actual custody is not vitiated nor it infringes the right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Article 22(5) — Preventive detention — Non-supply of documents — Document referred to in the ground of detention and relied upon by the detaining authority while arriving at subjective satisfaction to detain not supplied to the detenu — Detenu denied right to make effective representation — Detention vitiated and vocative of Article 22(5) of Constitution — Order quashed — Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Section 3(1).
Perusal of the record produced by the respondent show that in his statement
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act mention telephone number of does not figure. But the note dated 1st May, 2001 indicates telephone number. How in the note telephone number appeared if the same was not furnished by the petitioner herein? This document thereforee assumes relevance and importance moreover for the non-supply of the same, no cogent reason has been assigned except to say that non supply of all the documents mentioned in the representation has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner.
In view of the fact that was identified on the basis of the telephone number alleged to have been furnished by the petitioner and so inserted in the note dated 1st May, 2001, hence the said note dated 1st May, 2001 ought to have been supplied to him. Having not done so, his detention is invalid. .
Since this document was not supplied, the right to make effective representation had been denied. Hence, the detention cannot be said to be according to the procedure prescribed by Law.
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Section 3(1) — Preventive detention — Non-supply of documents in Hindi — Detenus endorsement and acknowledgement of documents handwritten in English — No demand for Hindi translation immediately after service of English version, but only after more than one month — Detention order not vitiated on ground of non-supply of Hindi translation.
Had the petitioner been ignorant of English language he would not have made endorsement in English that copies were clear and he understood it. He would have asked for Hindi translation immediately and not waited for more than one month to ask for Hindi translation. The order of detention cannot be set aside on this ground nor any right of the petitioner having been violated.
Section 3(1) — Preventive detention — Double detention — Detenu already in jail — Conditions under which the detaining authority can validly pass a second detention order while detenu is already in custody enumerated.
In the case of a person in custody a detention order can validity be passed if following conditions exists :-
(i) where the authority passing the detention order is aware of the fact that he is in actual physical custody;
(ii) said authority has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him ;
(a) that there is likelihood of his being released on bail; and
(b) that after being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities; and
(iii) it is felt essential by the detaining authority to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future.
If the detaining authority passes the detention order keeping all these factors into consideration and after recording its satisfaction in this behalf, then such an order cannot be struck down merely on the ground of double detention.
( 1 ) DHARAMPAL Verma has assailed the order of his detention dated 24th August,2001 passed under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter called PIT NDPS Act ). The said order was served on the petitioner on 31 st August,2001 while he was confined in Central Jail, Tihar, new Delhi.
( 2 ) THE impugned order has been assailed, inter-alia, on the grounds that: (1) the copies of the documents were not supplied in Hindi though demanded; (2) it amounts to double detention. (3) there were suppression of material facts and non-supply of documents,
( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge, we may have a quick glance to the facts of this case. The petitioner was apprehended on 1 may,2001. Subsequently vide detention order dated 24 th August,2001 he was detained under PIT NDPS Act. The impugned detention order was passed with a view to prevent him from engaging in the possession and transportation of narcotic drugs in future. The case of the respondent is that on information being received, the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter called NCB), conducted search of the person of Ms. Usha on 30th April,2001. From her person one Kg. of heroin was recovered. She was accordingly apprehended. From the search conducted at her residence two Kg. of heroin was recovered. She made a statement on 30 th april,2001 under Section 67 of the PIT NDPS Act wherein she stated that dharampal, the present petitioner and his wife Premvati had supplied two half-half Kg. packets of heroin to her on 30 th April,2001. She was to supply the same to Suresh. Money paid by Suresh amounting to Rs. 49,000/- was recovered from her residence. She identified the photograph of the petitioner Dharampal and his wife. She further identified from the photographs the petitioner and his wife as the persons who supplied her two half-half Kg. of heroin. On the basis of the statement of Ms. Usha dated 30th April,2001 and 1 st May, 2001, search was conducted at the residential premises of the petitioner. The same was conducted after obtaining search warrant dated 1 st May,2001, nothing recovered from his residence.
( 4 ) STATEMENT of the petitioner under Section 67 of the PIT NDPS act was recorded on 1 st May,2001 wherein he admitted his involvement in narcotic drugs business since 1973. In 1994 he met Gopal who was doing business of selling smack. He came in contact with Suresh and Girish through Gopal. Gopal used to supply one Kg. of smack at the rate of rs. 30,000/- per Kg. which in turn he used to sell to Suresh and Girish for rs. 50,000/- per Kg. He furnished the address of Gopal who was resident of village Balagoda, Tehsil Pipliya, Mandsaur, M. P. He also gave physical description of said Gopal. In his statement this petitioner admitted that he had earned Rs. 20. 00 lacs in dealing in drug trafficking. Out of this amount he bought movable and immovable properties. He further stated that on 30th april,2001 he along with his wife Premvati went in car to the house of Usha at amit Vihar, Bheta Hazipur, U. P. along with two packets of heroin of 1/2 Kg. each. He had given one Kg. of heroin to Usha on instructions from Suresh and received a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from Suresh i. e. the cost of heroin. Gopal used to sell him 1/2 Kgs. two packets or sometime 500 or 400 gms. heroin packets. He used to pay the value after selling those packets. Petitioner had been delivering the heroin to Suresh at his residential address at Shahdara. On instructions from Suresh, he started delivering the same at the residence of ms. Usha at Ghaziabad. Petitioner identified Usha to whom he had delivered heroin on 30th April,2001. In 1987 also police had recovered heroin from him but in that case he was acquitted. On the basis of the information supplied by dharampal search of Gopal at his village in M. P. was made.
( 5 ) AS regards the non supply of Hindi translation of the ground of detention and other documents, Mr.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
