SHEELA B. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by the mother of the detenu challenging the detention order passed invoking Sec. 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1988 (for short 'PIT NDPS Act'). The last prejudicial activity was on 27/12/2022. However, as seen from the impugned order itself that in connection with the previous crimes, a report was submitted on 29/10/2022 by the sponsoring authority (The District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram Rural) before the Additional Chief Secretary to the State Government. However, we see that the detention order was passed only on 8/3/2023. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in between, he committed another crime on 27/12/2022 which resulted in delay in passing the detention order.

(2.) Though there are reasons for delay in passing the detention order, we note the considerable delay between the report submitted by the sponsoring authority and the order passed by the detaining authority. Almost there was six months delay occasioned in this matter. Involvement of the detenu in a crime after the report submitted by the sponsoring authority cannot be a reason to justify the delay in passing the detention order. It is to be noted that the sponsoring authority submitted the report much before the last crime committed by the detenu. The purpose of Sec. 3(1) of PIT NDPS Act, 1988 is to prevent a person engaged in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. That means immediate action is required to proceed against persons who are committing such offences. If an order is passed after six months, the very purpose of provisions will be defeated. The court will have to balance liberty of the citizen and on the other hand the objectives of the statutory provisions. If a detention order is passed with much delay of six months, the liberty of citizens would be in peril and the Court cannot justify such order. In the light of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the delay in this matter snapped the live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is set at liberty, provided if his detention is not otherwise required under law.