JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT BENCH AT SRINAGAR
M.A. Chowdhary, J.
Barkat Ali Malik – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu And Kashmir & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 94 of 2022
Decided On : 27-12-2022
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988 - Detention under Section 3 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988, particularly focusing on Section 3. The court highlighted the importance of preventive detention and the limited scope of reviewing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The judgment emphasized that preventive detention is aimed at preventing the commission of an offense and protecting society from individuals involved in illegal activities related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Fact of the Case:
The detenue was ordered to be detained under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988. The petitioner challenged the detention order, alleging false and flimsy grounds without justification. The respondents contended that the detenue posed a threat to society by engaging in illegal drug trade and exploiting the younger generation. The court examined the detenue's involvement in illicit drug activities and upheld the detention order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detenue was actively involved in illegal drug business, posing a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people. The court emphasized the importance of preventive detention in protecting society from individuals engaged in anti-social and unlawful activities related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the detention order under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988, the grounds of detention, and the detenue's alleged involvement in illicit drug activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the detenue's continuous involvement in illegal drug activities, the limited scope of reviewing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and the objective of preventive detention in protecting society from individuals engaged in illegal activities related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the detention order was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed by the court. The detention record was returned to the respondents' counsel.
JUDGMENT
M. A. Chowdhary, J. - By virtue of Order No. DIVCom'K'/185/2022 dated 11.01.2022 (hereinafter called 'impugned order') passed by Divisional Commissioner Kashmir -respondent No.2, the detenue namely Barkat Ali Malik S/O Ghulam Hussain Malik R/O Bundnara (Lahori-check) Narbal Badgam, has been ordered to be detained under Section -3 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Aggrieved of the said detention order, detenue, through his brother, has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the same on the grounds taken in the petition in hand.
2. Case set up by the petitioner is that the detenue, in terms of the impugned order, has been detained under the Act on false and flimsy grounds without any justification. It is also pleaded that the grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective and meaningful representation against these allegations. Further plea of the detenue is that he has not been provided the material/documents relied upon by the detaining authority so as to make an effective representation before the detaining authority. Further plea of the petitioner is that the detenue was arrested in connection with FIR No. 35/2020 under Section 8/22 NDPS Act in the year 2020 but owing to the non-involvement of the detenue in the said FIR, he was admitted to bail by the court of Sessions Judge Budgam on 30.04.2020. The said bail was initially granted upto 28.05.2020 but subsequently vide order dated 13.06.2020 the interim bail order dated 30.04.2020 was made absolute. It is further submitted that while facing trial in connection with FIR No. 35/2020, the detenue was ordered to be detained under the provisions of NDPS Act vide order impugned. The grounds of detention as formulated by Divisional Commissioner have also been incorporated in the dossier which ipso facto demonstrate complete non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and vitiates the detention of the detenue.
3. Reply affidavit has been filed by respondents, vehemently resisting the petition. It is contended that the impugned order of detention does not suffer from any malice or legal infirmity, inasmuch as safeguards provided under the Constitution as also the rights of the detenue have been followed while ordering his detention, as such, challenge thrown to the impugned order of detention is not sustainable, hence on this score the instant petition merits dismissal. It is further contended that the detenue has been detained with a view to prevent him from indulging in illegal trade of illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance after satisfying that the detenue is a great threat for sustaining the conservative values of the society. The detenue has remained a notorious trafficker of contraband substance like 'cannabis' and is involved in the distribution of the same among the youth of the area. In the instant case there is enough material against the detenue which is highly suggestive of the fact that the normal law of the land is not sufficient to prevent him from continuing with his anti-social activities and, it is evident that the detenue is highly motivated and is not likely to desist from anti-social and unlawful activities.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The detention record, on its perusal, would indicate that two FIRs bearing FIR No. 02/2017 under Section 8/21 NDPS Act registered at Police station Lar Ganderbal and FIR No. 35/2020 under Section 8/22 NDPS Act were registered at Police Station Magam, besides the detenue is also involved in as many as three other cases registered in the area. The contraband seized from the detenue indicates that he is fully involved in the illegal trade in the organized manner which is a great threat for sustaining the conservative values of th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preventive detention in protecting society from individuals involved in illegal activities related to narcotic drugs and psychotr....
The main legal point established is the purpose and scope of preventive detention as a measure to protect society from individuals engaged in anti-social activities, emphasizing the limited scope of ....
Preventive detention is justified to protect society from individuals engaged in anti-social and unlawful activities, and the competence of the detaining authority is determined by the legal provisio....
Preventive detention is justified when there is a reasonable probability of future criminal activity, and the grounds for such detention must be clear and free from ambiguity.
Preventive detention is justified when there is reasonable suspicion of future offenses, emphasizing that it is not punitive but precautionary in nature.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of preventive detention to prevent illicit drug trafficking and the limited scope of judicial review in such cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of preventive detention to prevent future acts prejudicial to public order, emphasizing that the purpose of detention is not punitive....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of preventive detention to prevent individuals from engaging in acts prejudicial to public health and welfare, as emphasized by the l....
Criminal Trial - Illicit Traffic - Seeking quashment of detention order - Detaining authority has not indicated any compelling reasons to justify the preventive detention of the detenue when he was a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.