AMRITLAL AND ORS. versus UNION GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 07-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE, K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
AMRITLAL AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION GOVERNMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF 
FINANCE AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2000 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.) 
P_revention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
C Substances Act, 1988 : Section 3(1). 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 : Sections 8 
and 18. 
Preventive Detention-Detention order against a person already in 
D custody-Necessary conditions for validity of such an order. 
Preventive detention-Seizure of opium from appellant-Charge under 
Sections 8 and 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act-Rejection of bail application filed by 
appellant-Subsequently appellant detained under P.I. TN.D.P.S. Act, 1988-
0rder passed on the ground that there was likelihood of the appellant 
E moving the bail application-Writ challenging detention order-Rejection 
on the ground that the detaining authority had shown awareness of the 
petitioner being in custody and had also provided compelling reasons-
Appea/ before Supreme Court-Held, for validity of an order passed against 
a person in custody the necessary requirement is that there must be likelihood 
of the petitioners being released on bail-Jn the instant case the reasoning 
F 
available is the 'likelihood of appellant moving an application for bail' 
which is different from 'likelihood to be released on bail'-This reasoning, 
is not sufficient compliance with the requirements laid down-Detention 
order held not valid 
G 
Rivadeneyta Ricardo Augustine v. Govt. of the National Capital 
Territory of Delhi & Ors., 119941 Supp. I SCC 597 and Kumarunnissav. Union 
of India, 1199111SCC128, referred to. 
Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, 1198614 SCC 416, relied 
on. 
H 
450 
-
-
AMRITLAL 1·. UNION GOVT. THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE 45 J 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 838- A 
841of1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.98 of the Madhya Pradesh High 
Court in W.P. Nos. 1858, 1860, 1862 and 1859of1997. 
Pallav Shishodia and Abhijat P. Medh for the Appellants. 
A.S. Rawat for D.S. Mehra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
In these appeals the validity of the order of detention passed by the 
Joint Secretary to the Government of India stands challenged. 
C 
The contextual facts depict that the appellants were arrested pursuant 
to the raid conducted by the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics 
leading to the seizure of 132 Kgs. of opium and crime No. 22/96 was registered 
against them under sections 8/18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic D 
Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). The appellants prayed for being 
released on bail, but the Addi. District Judge, Neemuch, rejected the application. 
Subsequently however they were detained under section 3( I) of the Prevention 
of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for 
short 'the PITNDPS Act') by order dated 5.6.1997. The record depicts that the 
grounds of detention were communicated to the appellants within the stipulated E 
time and subsequently by order dated 17.8.1997 their detention has been 
confinned. The appellants moved the High Court on the ground that it was 
illegal and invalid as the detaining authority passed the order mechanically 
and without application of mind and that facts do not justify their detention. 
In any event the detention was further challenged on the ground of the same F 
being punitive in nature. The Division Bench of the High Court however 
dismissed the petitions on the ground that the detaining authority had shown 
awareness of the petitioners being in the custody and had also communicated 
the compelling reasons 'by hinting at the likelihood of their enlarging on bail'. 
The Division Bench of the High Court while dealing with the matter did take 
into consideration the factum of the two other persons connected with the G 
occurrence being released on bail and, as such, the detaining authority was 
not oblivious of the petitioners' custody and had also provided compelling 
reasons under section 3( 1) of the Act. 
Learned advocate appearing in support of the appeals during the course 
of hearing informed this Court that while it is true that by reason of efflux of H 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A time the period of detention has otherwise expired but continued to press the 
appeal with some emphasis by reason of the consequences as provided in the 
statute to wit: the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.