LexRAJAN WORLIKAR ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B RAJAN WORLIKAR ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. MAY 4, 2001 [M.B. SHAH AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988-Ss. 3 and 12-Detention order-Detenues' right to make representation before appropriate authority-Communication in detention· C order-Detention order clearly stipulating that detenu can make representation to the detaining authority, Central Government and the PITNDPS Advisory Board-Detenues clearly understanding that detention order was passed by the State Govemment-Held, it cannot be said that detenues were noi communicated that they have right to make representation D to the State Government . . Detention-Delay of 5 months in passing the order-Effect of-Held, since the detaining authority has sufficiently explained the reasons for the said delay, order not illegal or void. E Appellants, who were manufacturing Mandrax tablets by establishing a factory, were detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. Appellants' writ petitions before the ffigh Court contending that their detention under the Act was illegal and void, were dismissed. Hence the present appeals. \ . F On behalf'-Of appellants, it was contended th.at in the detention order, it was nowhere rrl.entioned that detenu had right to make representation to the State Government and such non-communication vitiates the detention; that from the operative part of the detention order it was apparent that the detaining authority was 'Specially Empowered Officer' under Section.31 of ·the Act and not the State Government. G On behalf of respondents it was contended that the detention order was made by State Government and in the grounds it was specifically mentioned .· that detenu can make the representation against the order of detaining authority i.e. the State Government; that the appellants understood very clearly H• that the order of detention was passed by the State Government and to that 512 - .. RAJAN WORLIKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 513 effect there was averment made by them in their writ petitions before the A High Court. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD : 1.1. It cannot be said that the appellants were not communicated that they were having right to make representation to the State Government B [517-G] 1.2. The grounds of detention specifically provided that the detenues have right to make the representation to the detaining authority, Central Government and the PITNDPS Officers Board. The order of detention begins with the words "Goveminent ofKamataka. ........ " and ends with "by order and C in the name of Governor of Karnataka." Thus, from the order of detention it is apparent that the said order was passed by the State Government Though the order of detention shows that the Additional Chief Secretary & Principal Secretary to Government, Home & Transport Department is specially empowered under Section 3(1) of the Act, but that by itself does not mean that the order of detention has been passed by him in the capacity of Specially D empowered Officer. If 'Specially empowered Officer' has exercised his power conferred upon him under Section 3(1) of the Act, he would not have stated that it was by order and in the name of the Governor. The beginning of the order also would not have been "Government of Karnataka", but it would have been in his name. Further, the appellants clearly understood that the E order of detention was passed by the State Government and there were averments in their writ petitions to that effect. [515-H; 516-A-F; 517-E-F..:G; 518-A-B] Kamlesh Kumqr Ishwar Das Patel v. Union of India, [1995) 4 SCC 51, referred to. .2. The detaining authority has sufficiently explained the reasons for delay in making the detention order. Thus, High Court was justified in . ··rejecting the contention of the appellants that the order of detention was illegal and void on the ground of delay. [518.:.E] F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. G 763 of 1998. · · From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.1997 of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 48of1997 (HC). WITH H A 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R. Criminal Appeal Nos. 764, 765, 766, 767, 768 and 769of1998. Sushil Kumar, Anil Lalla, R.P. Wadhwani, Prashant Kumar, M.P. Midha, N. Ganpathy, S.W.A. Qadri, Y.P. Mahajan, B.K. Prasad and P. Parmeswaran for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.