Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, ARINDAM LODH, JJ.
Golam Hossain - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura and Ors - Respondent
WP(C) (HC) 3 of 2019
Decided On : 02-12-2019
habeas corpus - Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Section 3(1) - 120(B) IPC, 20(b)(c)/22(c)/25/29 NDPS Act, 148/149/365/302 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the grounds for detention under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act and the relevant criminal cases under IPC and NDPS Act. The court also highlighted the mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(3) of the PITNDPS Act, emphasizing the detenu's right to know the grounds for detention and the time limits for communicating the detention order and grounds to the detenu.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Gulam Hossain, was detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The petitioner alleged that he was falsely implicated in criminal cases and that the detention order was passed without providing any reason or ground, depriving him of effective representation. The petitioner's representation was not disposed of expeditiously, and there was an inordinate delay in executing the detention order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was served with inordinate delay, violating the mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(3) of the PITNDPS Act. The court held the detention to be illegal and arbitrary, ordering the release of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was unreasonable delay in serving the detention order upon the petitioner, and whether the inordinate delay in execution of the order of detention vitiated the detention order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the time limits for communicating the detention order and grounds to the detenu as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 3(3) of the PITNDPS Act. The court held that the detention order was served with inordinate delay, rendering the detention illegal and arbitrary.
Final Decision: The court held the detention of the petitioner to be illegal and arbitrary, ordering the petitioner's release forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
ARINDAM LODH, J.
1. By means of filing the present petition in the nature of habeas corpus the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of detention under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (here-in-after referred to as the PITNDPS Act) issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Tripura vide Order No. F.15(09)-PD/2018(P-1)/4200 dated 26.12.2018.
2. The facts, which are said to have led to the quashing of the detention order, are briefly summarized here-under:
3. After his arrest, the investigating agency had raided the residential house of the petitioner and nothing incriminating materials were recovered and further no contraband articles were seized and found in the possession of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was issued with the detention order dated 26.12.2018 as aforestated without any reason and ground with malafide intention [Annexure-1 to the writ petition]. It is stated by the petitioner that while passing the detention order the issuing authority had only made reference to all the criminal cases as aforestated and the said detention order was passed on the basis of the proposal of the Director General of Police, Tripura and other supporting documents, but, nothing was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner about the allegations and the grounds and the proposal made by the Director General of Police for such detention, the petitioner was never served with any copy of the documents or proposal signed by the Director General of Police on which the order of detention was made. The petitioner has further stated that the detention order never spoke of anything of the relevant facts or factors that prompted the authority concerned to issue the order of detention, as such, the said order was passed most mechanically and the same is liable to be quashed. No materials were supplied by the detaining authority stating the basic ground for such detention. It is further stated that due to non supply of relevant materials and documents, the petitioner was deprived of making effective representation. However, the petitioner had submitted representation on 18.02.2019 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura through the Superintendent of Jail, Udaipur against the said order of detention dated 26.12.2018 stating inter alia that he was an innocent person and in no way involved with the allegations levelled against him. Further, it was stated that there was no whisper in the order that what type of proposal or what type of supporting documents on the basis of which the authority passed the order of detention and what were those sufficient grounds that prompted the authority concerned to issue the detention order of the petitioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of PITNDPS Act.
4. The petitioner has further stated that he filed representation before the competent authority, i.e. the Government of Tripura, on 18.02.2019, but, he was kept in dark about the fate o
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
