RAM GOPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 30th April, 2OO1 at about 10.05 A.M. one Ms.Usha was coming to the Railway Crosstag from. Nand Nagri side when she was apprehended because there was information with the respndent that she was carrying heroin. From her seacrch by the oficials of the Narcotic Control Burean (in short NCB) one kg. of Heroin was recovered which was packed in white poiythene bag. She was served with legul notice to appear on 30.4.2001 at 1900 hours in the office of the NCB, there her statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrpic Substance Act, (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) was recorded. She admitted the recovery and also the fact that heroin was supplied to her by one Dharam Pal and his wife Premvati. Her residential premises bering No.A-186, Amit Vihar, Bheta Hazipur, Ghaziabad, U.P., was also searched where from NCB officials recovered two double transpaent polythene bags coutaining two kg. of heroin beside India courrency amounting to Rs.49000/-. After completing the formalities, she was again summoned on 1.5.2001 on which date again her statement under Seetion 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded. She identified the photographs of Dharam pal and his wife as the persons who had supplied heroin to her. On the basis of her statement., raid and search was conducted on 1.5.2001 at the residential premises of Dharam Pal. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the said search. Statements of Dharam Pal and Ms wife under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were also recorded, wherein Dharam Pai admitted having supplied heroin to Ms.Usha. He stated that he used to get supply of heroin from the present petitioner Mr. Gopal, son of Ganesh Ram Poewai, Village Balagoda, P.S. Plpllya Mendi, Dlstt Mandsaur, M.P. On getting this information regaitling Involement of Gopal, a fax message was sent to the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, CBN, Neemuch, M.P. for taking follow up action against GopaL Search of the house of the petitioner was conducted on 3L5.2001 but it led to nil recovery. Again bis house was searched on 14.5.2001 but nothing incriminating was recovered. However, the petitioner was arrested on the same day. He was asked to appear in the office of the NCB. His statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded wherein he stated that Ms father was also involved in drug trafficking. His father was arrested by CBN in 1996 because of drug trafficking. He further stated that by selling heroin he had been charging between Rs.50,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per kg, from Ashok Kumar and Dharam Pal of Delhi. After Asliok Kumar was arrested this petitioner started selling heroin to Dharam Pal at his residence at Kalu Sarai, Delhi. Dharam Pal became his contact man in Delhi. The petitioner used to procure heroin from one Ganpat resident of Rajasthan. He knew Dharam Pal and his family and also Ashok Kumar and his family. Dharam pal and Us wife Prcmvati were identified by the petitioner through their photographs. Petitioner had been earning approximately Rs.1.50 lacs as profit in dealing in this trade which business he was doing since 1996. On the basis of petitioner's statement, a fax message was seat to Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, CBN, Neemuch to ascertain other details about the petitioner. In response Dy. Narcotics Commissioner, CBN, Neemuch informed that petitioner was involved in a case in which 0.420 kg. of heroin was seized from him on 7.12.1999 at Suwasara railway station. Petitioner was also arrested in seizure case of 0.690 Kg. of morphine on 29.5.97 which was followed by detection of a clandestine laboratory and seizure of 1.100 Kgs. of opium powder and 30.40 kg, of opium solution on 30.5.97. This petitioner's father Ganesh Ram was earlier arrested in seizure case of 1 kg, of heroin on 15.3.1993.

(2.) The antecedents activities of the petitioner had proximity in point of time with his indulging in drug trafficking in the present case. This fact emerged from the records produced before the detaining authority. The present petitioner disclosed the identity of Dharam Pal and his family. Petitioner, however, filed his retracted statement on 20.5.2001 which retraction was rejected by the competent authority. On the basis of material brought on record the detaining authority came to the conclusion that Ram Gopal, the petitioner herein, had knowingly engaged himself in the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs as was evident from the material on record and if not prevented he was likely to continue to engage himself in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs.

(3.) Taking into consideration all the facts available on record, the detaining authority ordered detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psyehotropie Substances Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PIT NDPS Act). Vide the order of detention dated 24.8.2001 the detaining authority came to the conclusion that in order to prevent him from engaging in the possession and transportation of the narcotic drugs in future, it was also felt necessary to pass the impugned order. Along with the detention order, petitioner was supplied the grounds of detention and the relied upon documents.