DIWAKAR GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition challenging detention orders in respect of the petitioners at the pre-execution stage. It is an admitted position that virtually identical detention orders have been issued against co-accused rajesh Sharma and Nafe Singh. The present petition pertains to the detention orders in respect of Diwakar Gupta and Amit Kohli.

(2.) INSOFAR as Rajesh Sharma and Nafe Singh are concerned, they had also filed writ petitions challenging their respective detention orders. Those writ petitions were numbered as WP (Crl) 326/2009 and WP (Crl) 384/2009 respectively. Those writ petitions have been disposed of by a judgment delivered by this Court on 06. 05. 2009. The result of the said writ petitions was that the impugned detention orders therein were set aside and the petitioners therein, namely, Rajesh Sharma and Nafe Singh, who had been taken into custody pursuant to the detention orders, were directed to be released forthwith.

(3.) THOSE petitions as well as the present writ petitions pertain to the allegation that the petitioners herein as well as Rajesh Sharma and Nafe singh had indulged in illegal trading of diazepam, lorazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam and phenobarbitone. Consequently, this was construed by the detaining authority as falling within the expression 'illicit traffic' as defined in the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PIT-NDPS Act' ). It is an admitted position that the above substances are psychotropic substances and are specified in the Schedule to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act' ). However, these substances are not mentioned in Schedule-I to the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS rules' ). In the said decision of Rajesh Sharma and Nafe Singh, this Court examined in detail the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as also the relevant case law on the subject and came to the conclusion that export of the aforesaid substances did not amount to illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and, therefore, the detention orders under Section 3 (1) of the PIT-NDPS Act could not have been passed. Consequently, those orders were set aside.