Back
High Court Of Delhi
JYOTIN VYAS - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 540 of 1988
Decided On : 04/21/1989
PREVENTIVE DETENTION - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 17 - PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ORDINANCE, 1988 - SECTION 3(1) - DETENTION ORDER - JUDICIAL CUSTODY - BAIL - SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF DETAINING AUTHORITY - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - DETENTION ORDER SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Jyotin Vyas, was preventively detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988, for engaging in the possession, sale, and purchase of psychotropic substances. The petitioner challenged the detention order, arguing that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not made out and that the possibility of his release on bail was nonexistent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detaining authority had not been apprised of the fact that the petitioner had been granted interim bail for three weeks by the High Court prior to the passing of the detention order. The court also found that the detaining authority had merely denied the petitioner's specific averments that he had not committed any prejudicial acts during the period of his interim bail, without specifically denying those statements.
Issues: 1. Whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was made out. 2. Whether the possibility of the petitioner's release on bail was nonexistent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was not made out because the detaining authority had not been apprised of the fact that the petitioner had been granted interim bail for three weeks by the High Court prior to the passing of the detention order. The court also held that the possibility of the petitioner's release on bail was not nonexistent, as the petitioner had been granted interim bail for three weeks and had not committed any prejudicial acts during that period.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the detention order.
( 1 ) (RULE D. B. ).-By this petition, Jyotin Vyas who has been preventively detained, challenges the order of detention made by Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, a specially empowered officer under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic, in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) on 6th July, 1988. The said order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from engaging in possession, sale and purchase of psychotropic substances. The impugned order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu while he was in judicial custody in Central Jail, Tihar.
( 2 ) TO appreciate the contentions urged before us, a few may be noticed.
( 3 ) ON a secret information received by the Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, the godown of M/s. Delhi-Kanpur- Gondia Transport Company, Delhi was searched on 5th August, 1987 and two packages containing in all 50,000 Prodorn tablets containing Melhaqualone Psychotropic substance were seized. The said consignments were booked by one Tejinder Singh under Goods Receipt No. 627020. As a result of interrogation of Tejinder Singh, the residential premise of the petitioner (the detenu) were searched on 6th August, 1987 which led to the recovery of one polythene bag containing white powder weighing 25 Kg. On being tested with a test kit, the white powder was found to be Methaqualone Psychotropic Substance. It was seized under a Panchnama.
( 4 ) THE petitioner s statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter called the NDPS Act) was recorded on 6th August, 1987 itself. In the said statement, the petitioner is alleged to have named his co-accused Ashok Kumar Jaidka of Ghaziabad. It was to Ashok Kumar Jsidka that the petitioner had by then supplied about 1000 Kg. approximately of Methaqualone powder in piecemeal. Approximately two bags weighing 25 Kg. each were being supplied by the detenu to Ashok Kumar Jaidka in a month. Ashok Kumar Jaidka used to get the powder converted into tablets. The conversion or the manufacturing process was being carried out in the factory of Tejinder Singh, was, as it has been noticed above, had consigned the tablets which were recovered from the godown of the company. The petitioner is also alleged to have disclosed the manner and the parties from whom he used to get the Methaqualone powder and how after the manufacturing of the tablets, the narcotic drug was being disposed of.
( 5 ) THE petitioner was arrested on 6th August, 1987. It appears that his co-accused Ashok Kumar Jaidka s statement had been recorded a day earlier. Alongwith Tejinder Singh, he was also arrested for having committed an offence under the NDPS Act. The petitioner was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 7th August, 1987, who remanded him to judicial custody. After completion of the investigations, a criminal complaint was filed in the court of competent jurisdiction against the petitioner and others for offences under the NDPS Act. The detaining authority, in the list of documents, has relied upon this complaint. It is mentioned at Item No. 19. It is admitted at the Bar that the complaint was filed on 2nd November, 1987 and is pending for trial. It was almost after eight month of the filing of the challan that the detention order was served on the petitioner. The detaining authority was of the view that in case the detenu was released on bail. he was likely to indulge in the prejudicial activities detailed in the detention order and a summary of which has been noticed above.
( 6 ) AT this stage it is relevant to quote paragraphs 6 and 7 of the grounds of detention. The main argument of Mr. Grover that the subjective satisfaction of he detaining authority is not made out, is based on these two paragraphs.
"6. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of th
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
