RAJAN WORLIKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 28th October 1997 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petitions Nos. 42 to 48 of 1997 (HC). By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court rejected the contention raised by the appellants that the order of detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PITNDPS Act') was illegal and void.

(2.) For the purpose of deciding these appeals we would refer to few facts pertaining to Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 1998. The order of detention was passed on 15th April, 1997 and has already expired on 23rd April, 1998. It has also been pointed out that trial against the appellant is pending for the offences punishable under the NDPS Act. In the grounds of detention it is alleged that detenues had established factory where they were manufacturing Mandrax tablets which are psychotropic substances prohibited under the NDPS Act at the premises situated at Belgaum, State of Karnataka. A search was conducted in the aforesaid premises on 7th and 8th November, 1996. During the search it was found that premises had been converted into a factory where Mandrax Tablets were being manufactured by installing a tabletting machine, an oven and granulator etc. Appellant Rajan Worlikar was arrested on 8th November, 1996. He applied for releasing him on bail and was released on bail on 25th February, 1997. The order releasing him on bail was stayed by the High Court. Finally that revision application was allowed and the order releasing him on bail was set aside by order dated 17th April, 1998. During that time on 15th April, 1997, as stated above, order of detention was passed against him.

(3.) At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned senior counsel Shri Sushil Kumar on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 1998 submitted that the order of detention is void because of non-communication to the detenue that he has a right of making representation to the State Government. For this purpose he relied upon the decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwar Das Patel vs. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 51. He precisely relied upon Paragraph 38 of the Judgment which reads thus :