JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT BENCH AT SRINAGAR
M.A. Chowdhary, J.
Sartaj Ahmad Ganai – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu And Kashmir & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 342 of 2022
Decided On : 27-12-2022
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Preventive Detention - Section 3 - 9/15 NDPS Act, Section 8/18-20 NDPS Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was taken into preventive custody under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The petitioner challenged the detention order on various grounds including illegality, unconstitutionality, and denial of effective representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detenue was actively involved in the illegal trade of drugs, posing a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people. The court emphasized the importance of preventive detention to protect society from individuals engaged in anti-social activities.
Issues: The issues included the legality and constitutionality of the detention order, denial of effective representation, and the necessity of preventive detention in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the purpose of preventive detention as a measure to intercept and prevent individuals from engaging in activities that endanger the welfare of the country or disturb public tranquility. The court also highlighted the limited scope of reviewing the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in preventive detention cases.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be without merit and dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
M. A. Chowdhary, J. - Petitioner in the instant petition has been taken into preventive custody under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in terms of the order of detention bearing No. DIVCOM'K'/210/2022 dated 18.03.2022 (for short 'the impugned order), passed by Divisional Commissioner Kashmir (for short 'detaining authority').
2. The order of detention is challenged by the detenue through the medium of this petition and is sought to be quashed on the following grounds:-
a) That, the order of detention being illegal and also being unconstitutional violative of fundamental as well as statutory rights of the detenue deserves to be quashed.
b) That, the detaining authority has passed the order of detention without applying its mind and the same is apparent from the record because allegedly the detenue is arrested in substantive offences and in this behalf mention of two FIRs bearing No. 20/2021 under Section 9/15 NDPS Act and No. 49/2021 under Section 8/18-20 NDPS Act registered in Police Station Shopian have allegedly been registered against the detenue and in both these FIRs the detenue is alleged to have been arrested.
c) That the detenue was arrested on 17.03.2021 in case FIR No. 49/2021 and that the detention order and the grounds of detention do not mention what are the compelling reasons and grounds necessitating the preventive detention of the detenue as the detenue was already arrested and detained under substantive offences.
d) That, right to make effective representation is totally denied to the detenue because the material in the shape of FIR and also seizure memo as well as other statements of witnesses, if any recorded during the investigation, and also report of the Investigating Officer concluding investigation in this behalf have in both the FIRs, mentioned in the grounds of detention, was not supplied to the detenue nor made known to the detenue or communicated to the detenue.
e) That, neither copy of the detention order, grounds of detention and the other allied documents relied upon, have been supplied nor any translated copies of the same have been supplied to the detenue in a language known to him i.e., Kashmiri.
3. Counter affidavit stands filed by the respondents, 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 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. 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 xerox copy of which has been produced by learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The detention record, on its perusal, would indicate that two FIRs bearing Nos. 20/2021 under Section 9/15 NDPS Act and No. 49/2021 under Section 8/18-20 NDPS Act, were registered at Police Station Shopian, involving the detenue. The contraband seized from the detenue indicates that he was fully involved in the illegal trade in the organized manner which is a great threat for sustaining the conservative values of the society. It has been observed that the activities of the detenue have posed a se
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 ....
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....
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 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 under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, is aimed at protecting society from activities likely to deprive people of their ....
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....
Preventive detention upheld validating detaining authority's subjective satisfaction from material on continued anti-national activities prejudicial to state security; courts do not substitute views ....
Preventive detention upheld where detaining authority's subjective satisfaction rationally based on material indicating prejudicial activities to state security; courts cannot substitute view or ques....
Preventive detention is justified when there is reasonable suspicion of future offenses, emphasizing that it is not punitive but precautionary in nature.
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.