LexBIRENDRA KUMAR RAI ALIAS VIRENDRA KUMAR RAI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BiRENDRA KUMAR RA! ALIAS VIRENDRA KUMAR RA! A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 3, 1992 [KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub- stnaces Ac4 1988: B Section 3(1)-l'reventive detention-Detenu-<:omplaint filed under C Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Custody W111Tant is- sued-Before service of wWTant detenu an:ested under Anns Act and Motor Vehicles Act-Voluminous evidence showj11g detenu's engagement in illicit ITllffic in Narcotic Drugs-Detention order [JllSSed while detenu was in jail for offences under Anns Act and Motor Vehicles Act-Detaining Authority men- tioning 'likelihood' of prosecution under NDPS Act in ground of deten- D tio~Allegation of non-application of mind-Use of word 'likely' does not necessarily indicate non-application of mind--Order held not vitiated. Detention Order-Compelling necessity for-Subjective satisfaction-If sufficient mateiral is placed before detainirig authority Court is not entitled to interfere with detention order. E Detention Order-Representation against-Delay in consideration and disposal-Question of delay depends on facts of each case-lJelay of 33 days explained properly-Detention order held not vitiated. Declaration under Section 10( l}-Representation against-Delay in consideration and disposaf-f'eriod taken by postal authorities cannot be attributed as delay of authorities. Preventive detention-Detention cases should be dealt with more care F and circumspection-Need for detention cases to be dealt with by fully trained G and experienced persons emphasised. A complaint under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was filed against the petitioner and others on 7.11.1990 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Varanasi and a custody warrant was also issued. However, before the warrant of arrest could be served the petitioner was H 391 392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A arrested in connection with offences under section 25 of the Arms Act and section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act and be was detained in District Jail, Gbazlpur. Thus the petitioner having already been arrested in the cases under the Arms Act and Motor Vehicles Act the warrant of arrest issued by Varanasi Court under the NDPS Act was never executed nor the detenu B brought from District Jail Gbazlpur to the concerned Court at Varanasi. During the custody of the petitioner in the District Jail Gbazipur a detention order under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Trame in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 was passed against the petitoner on 4.12.1990 and the same was served on him along with the grounds of detention on 10.12.1990. On 22.12.1990 the petitioner made a C representation against the detention order which was rejected by the Government on 25.1.1991. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Habeas Cor· pus petition In the Allahabad High Court challenging the detention which was dismissed by a Full Bench of the High Court. The petitioner filed a · Speacial Leave Petition in this Court challenging the order of the High D Court. During the pendency of the petition the petitioner also filed IUl application stating additional grounds for challenging the declaration issued under section 10(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic In Narcodc. Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. On behalf of the petitioner It was contended that the detention order E was invalid because (a) there was non-application of mind by the detain· ing authority which was evident from the fact the though the complaint under the NDPS Act had already been filed yet the detaining authority In its ground of detention was mentioning that 'prosecution proceedings under NDPS Act are likely to be initiated against you'; (b) that when the F petitioner was already in custody and a case had been initiated against him under the NDPS Act and there being no probability of grant of bail, there was no ground or justification for the satisfaction of the detaining authority to hold that there was compelling necessity for the detention of the petitioner; (c) that there was unexplained and Jong delay of 33 days in the disposal of the representation made by the petitioner against the G detention order; and (d) the Jong delay of one month and 17 days in consideration and disposal of the representation made against declara· lion under section 10(1) of the PITN
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.