AMRITLAL Vs. UNION GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals the validity of the order of detention passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India stands challenged.

(2.) 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 Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). The appellants prayed for being released on bail, but the Addl. District Judge, Neemuch, rejected the application. Subsequently however they were detained under Section 3(1) 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 time and subsequently by order dated 17-8-1997 their detention has been confirmed. 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 being punitive in nature. The Divisioin 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 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.

(3.) 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 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 forfeiture of the property of the detenu and it is in this context strong reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, (1994) 1 Suppl. SCC 597. This Court while dealing with the matter and relying upon the decision of this Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 128 came to the conclusion that the order of detention cannot but be quashed. In Kamarunnissa's case (supra) this Court was pleased to observe thus:-