KUMAR ARCHANA CHELAWAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Kumari Archana Chelawat, the petitioner, prays for quashing of the order of detention dated October 11, 1988 passed by Shri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, in respect of the petitioner's brother, Shri Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat. Shri Verma passed the order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, with a view to prevent said Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat from engaging in the transportation and abetting in the inter-state export of psychotropic substances. It is stated in the grounds of detention that on September 21, 1988, a godown of one Siddharth Trotters Pvt. Ltd. Kothari Mansion, at 357, S.V.P. Road, Bombay, was searched. Fine cardboard cartons containing in all 2,51,000/- mandrax tablets weighing 125.5 kgs. and valued at Rs. 7,53,000/- were seized from there. During the follow up investigations the officers of the Central Excise and Customs searched the premises of the detenu's father S.K. Chelawat at Indore (M.P.) which resulted in the recovery of 51 kgs. of Mandrax tables from a Maruti Van parked in the house compound on September 22/23, 1988 which was seized 20,500 kgs. of mandrax tablets, 148.300 kgs. of methaqualone powder and 97.700 kgs. of white powder was recovered from the garage and 200 grams of brown tablets was recovered from the residence itself. In the search conducted on September 23, 1988 one telephone diary was seized from the shop premises of Crescent Pharmaceuticals, Indore and on September 24, 1988 machinery used for the manufacture of mandrax tablets was seize. The statement of Manoj Kumar Dayachand Jain was recorded by the Customs Authorities in which he stated that he had received mandrax tablets from said S.K. Chelawat of Indore. S.K. Chelawat in his statement recorded on September 23, 1988 stated that he had been manufacturing mandrax tablets at his factory at Indore; and that he was assisted in that by his son Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat, the detenu. The detenu is also alleged to have stated before the concerned authorities on October 3, 1988 that he had been maintaining accounts regarding raw material received and supplied for mandrax tablets. He also transported such tablets in Maruti Van which was registered in his name. He also stated that he had suspicion that the tablets manufactured by his father were illegal and possibly narcotics.

(2.) TWO grounds were urged by Mr. Ram, Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate to challenge the order of detention. It was submitted by Mr. Jathmalani that the detention order was passed on October 11, 1988, while the detenu was in judicial custody and no application for being released on bail was filed. There is no mention in the grounds of detention that the detenu was likely to be released or that the Detaining Authority at all considered this matter. The order also does not refer to any fact or circumstance or material on the basis of which the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the detenu was likely to indulge in the illegal activity from which he was sought to be prevented by making the order of detention against him, on his coming out of the jail, he being already in judicial custody. It was contended that all this went to show that this is a case of total non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority in passing the order of detention and as such the order of detention deserves to be struck down.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. Ram Jethmalani is that propositions (ii) to (iv) above must be complied with for an order of detention to be free from the attack of being a mindless act. In support of his contention Mr. Ram Jethmalani referred to two judgments of the Supreme Court, namely, Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P., 1986(1) Recent Criminal Reports 579 (SC) : AIR 1988 SC 596 and Abdul Razak v. S.N. Sinha, Commr. of Police, 1982(2) SCC 222 and the judgment of this Court in Jyotin Vyas v. Union of India and others, 1989(2) Delhi Lawyer 143.