ASHOK SOLOMON Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Ashok Solomon, has through this habeas corpus petition challenged the detention order against him passed on 19.1.89 The order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psyhotropic Substances Act, 1988. In the detention order he is described as a kingpin in organised drugs trafficking. It is alleged that about 400 KGs. of charas was recovered from him on 21.7.86. The Secretary (Home), Delhi Administration, exercised his subjective satisfaction (that detention of the petitioner was necessary for prevention of illicit trafficking in drugs) on 19.1.1989 and passed the impugned order. After the alleged recovery of large quantities of charas from the detenu on 21.7.1986, criminal prosecution was started under the said Act. If the prosecution would have been vigorously pursued by the Administration the petitioner could have been convicted by now and could have been at least sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. I lac which is the minimum sentence under the Act. But, even after the lapse of three years the main witnesse regarding recovery of large quantity of charas are not examined and the end of the prosecution before the Sessions Judge is not in sight. In the meanwhile the petitioner is detained by way of preventive detention. If the object was to immobilise the petitioner in drug trafficking and to stop the social menace, ten years imprisonment after conviction would have served the real social objective. If the object of detention was punishment (which cannot be a legitimate object of preventive detention) detention of one year is what Justice Krishna lyer once described as 'flea bite' as compared to ten years rigorous imprisonment on proper conviction. We are constrained to release the petitioner and quash the detention order for several legal infirmities, the principal being staleness of grounds, absence of compelling necessity and non-application of mind vitiating the subjective satisfaction. Considering the facts of the case. in execrise of our powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, we direct the learned Sessions Judge to hear the criminal cases on day to day basis and conclude the trial within the period of four months. This case is also a story of desperate dilema faced by the High Courts in dealing with such preventive detentions-the dilemma created by administrative failures and uncertainties in the decisional law.

(2.) In this habeas corpus petition the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of dentention order dated 19.1.1989 passed against him under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

(3.) The said order and grounds of detention may be noted :