RAVI SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, paying for quashing order of detention dated July 6, 1988, passed by Shri K. L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988, with a view to prevent the petitioner from abetting and financing the export from India of narcotic drugs.

(2.) The facts leading to the passing of the detention order, in brief, are that on August 22, 1987, at 1.30 P.M. Mrs. Amar Song, who was to take flight No. AZ-787 at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, for Barcelona (Spain) was apprehended as there was a secret information already available with the officers of Narcotic Control Bureau and her baggage was searched and two packets of heroin weighing approximately 4 kgs. in all were recovered from her suitcase. In the investigation it transpired that this petitioner, Ramesh Kumar, Pooran Singh, one Shafi and Partap had con pired to smuggle out of India the said narcotic drug through the carrier Mrs. Amar Song and it was the petitioner, who had got packed the said heroin in the cardboard boxes with carbon lining with help of Partap, Vijay and Pooran and the petitioner took Pooran along for handing over the said boxes to the said lady and on; Ramesh was to fly in the same aeroplane without the information of the said carrier and Ramesh was to take over the heroin after the lady was to clear the Custom at Barcelona. It also came out in the grounds of detention that Vijay Kumar had made a statement that he knew the petitioner for the last about 8-9 years and the petitioner has been dealing in heroin for the last about 5 years. Statements of the petitioner and other co-detenus were also recorded.

(3.) As first ground of challenge, counsel for the petitioner has urged that this seizure was effected in August 1987 while the detention order has been made in July 1988. So, it is based on a State incident and is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has urged that the Ordinance in question came into force recently and thus, it was for the detaining authority to be subjectively satisfied with regard to the involvement of the petitioner and for the necessity of detaining him on the basis of the material which was available with the detaining authority and the Court cannot go into the question, whether the said subjective satisfaction is in any manner defective.