AZIZ AHMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who himself is a detenu has challenged the order of his detention dated 12th of January, 1988 passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (as amended) by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India. This followed an incident dated 21st of November, 1987 when a narcotic smuggling ring was busted in New York pursuant to which the functionaries of the Narcotic Control Bureau in India were alerted and they started investigating links of various persons connected with the conspiracy to smuggle narcotics out of India and the manner in which it was being smuggled out. The petitioner was arrested as a part of this conspiracy after one Sukh Dev Singh and Narinder Vashnoi were found in hotel Ashoka and were found carrying the telephone number of the detenu. While the narcotic people were there the petitioner also arrived there and he was allegedly removed to the headquarters of the Narcotic Control Bureau located in Ranjit Hotel where some other persons connected with this conspiracy were also brought. There is no need for me to refer to any further details excepting the fact that during the course of investigation statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded in which he indicated the role he was assigned in this conspiracy. As a necessary link to this conspiracy the premises of one Surendra Shantilal Shah at Bombay was also searched and from the terrace of his house 2.5 K.Gs heroin were recovered. Statements of all the persons connected with this smuggling syndicate were recorded and on the basis of the totality of the evidence it was concluded that the petitioner was a part of the conspiracy to smuggle narcotics out of India. It was in these circumstances that the detention order was passed against him with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods.

(2.) Now before proceeding further, here at this stage I may take tice of the fact that on 24th of November, 1987 Surendra Shantilal Shah filed an application before the court at Bombay in which apart from seeking bail on the set of facts mentioned in the application he stated that his statement was taken by coercion and under duress and that it was involuntary. This is characterised by Mr. Herjinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, as a retraction of the confession alleged to have been made by Surendra Shantilal Shah.

(3.) The main contention of Mr. Herjinder Singh, appearing for the detenu, is that since the grounds of detention delivered to the detenu at para 25 clearly reveal that the detaining authority in making the detention order has also relied on the bail applications moved in the court by the detenu and his accomplice and also by the NCB and orders passed thereupon he made a repre- sentation to the detaining authority on 22nd February, 1988 requesting him for supplying the retractions made by his co-accused. His contention is that the retraction of Surendra Shantilal Shah which he made in the bail application even though taken into consideration by the detaining authority while making the order of detention was not supplied to him on 23rd June, 1988 though in the case of his alleged accomplices it was supplied to them on 24th of May. 1988. It is thus stated that since the Advisory Board had met earlier and the order of detention had also been confirmed the detenu was prevented from making an effective and purposeful representation.