IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
M.A. CHOWDHARY, J.
Tawqeer Bashir Magray – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K & Anr. – Respondents
WP(Crl) No. 136 of 2023
Decided on : 24-08-2023
Narcotic Drugs - Detention under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988 - Section 3 - [Section 3 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988] - The court discussed the competence of the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir as the detaining authority, the grounds of detention, and the legal provisions for preventive detention. The court upheld the detention order based on the detenue's involvement in illicit drug activities and the threat posed to society by his actions.
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 on the grounds of procedural safeguards, competence of the detaining authority, and vagueness of the grounds of detention. The respondents defended the detention order, citing the detenue's involvement in illegal drug trade and the threat posed to society.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the detention order, ruling that the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir was competent as the detaining authority and that the detenue's involvement in illicit drug activities justified preventive custody. The court emphasized the importance of preventive detention in protecting society from individuals engaged in anti-social and unlawful activities.
Issues: Competence of the detaining authority, procedural safeguards, vagueness of grounds of detention
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the detenue's involvement in illicit drug activities, the threat posed to society, and the legal provisions for preventive detention. The court emphasized the necessity of preventive measures to protect society from individuals engaged in anti-social and unlawful activities.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the detention order was dismissed, and the detention was upheld based on the detenue's involvement in illicit drug activities and the threat posed to society.
JUDGMENT :
1. By virtue of Order No. DIVCOM-“K”/21/2023 dated 04.03.2023 (for short ‘impugned order’) passed by Divisional Commissioner Kashmir - respondent No.2, the detenue namely Tawqeer Bashir Magray S/O Late Bashir Ahmad Magray R/O Nowshara Boniyar Baramulla, has been ordered to be detained under Section -3 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). Aggrieved of the said detention order, detenue, through his wife, 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 detaining authority has not followed the constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards while passing the detention order of the detenue; that that order of detention has been passed in breach of the mandate of law as declared by the Supreme Court of India as also the other High Courts of the country; that the detention order passed by Divisional Commissioner, in terms of the Central Act, is not competent to detain a person whereas the competent officer is Secretary to Government or the officer of the rank of Joint Secretary especially empowered in this behalf; 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; that the detenue was arrested in connection with FIR No. 04/2023 under Section 8/21 NDPS Act on 30.01.2023 but owing to the non-involvement of the detenue in the said FIR, he was admitted to bail by the court of Sessions Judge Baramulla on 25.02.2023; that while facing trial in connection with FIR No. 04/2023, 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, demonstrates 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 and illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 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 antisocial 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. Detention record, as was directed to be made available, is produced by learned counsel for the respondents, which, on perusal, would indicate that FIR No. 04/2023 under Section 8/21 NDPS Act was registered at Police station Sheeri against the detenue. The contraband seized from the detenue, prima facie, indicates that he is fully involved in the illegal trade in an 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 serious threat to th
Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration & Ors.
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India
Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India & Ors.
The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya AIR 1951 SC 157
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....
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 in the judgment is the necessity of preventive detention to prevent illicit drug trafficking and the limited scope of judicial review in such cases.
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.
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 under the Act is justified based on reasonable suspicion of future offenses, and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not subject to extensive judicial revie....
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....
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 ....
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 future acts prejudicial to public order, emphasizing that the purpose of detention is not punitive....
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.