KAVITHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 29-1-2007, whereby, her father has been detained under Act 14/1982 branding him as "drug Offender" as contemplated under section 2 (c) of the said Act.

(2.) THE detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in three cases for being found in possession and selling of ganja in H. 6 dr. R. K. Nagar Police Station Cr. Nos. 668/ 2004, 375/2005 and 1588/2005. On 26-6-2006, the NIB CID has received reliable information that the detenu is selling ganja at bharathi Nagar, 6th Street, near Vinayaga temple, Korukkupet, Chennai. The NIB cid went to the spot and after observing the formalities of the act, on being searched the detenu was found to be in possession of 4. 750 kgs of ganja in polythene bag. That apart in his bag, the detenu was also found to be in possession of four packets, each containing 25 gms of ganja, totalling 100 gms and the said packets were taken as sample and labelled. Sample of about 50 gms were taken in two polythene covers and the same were sealed and labelled. For the alleged possession and selling of ganja, a case was registered in Cr. No. 91/2006 u/s. 8 (c) read with 20 (b), (ii) (B) of NDPS act. On being satisfied that the detenu is acting in a prejudicial manner to the maintenance of public order and public health, the detention order was clamped on the detenu.

(3.) EVEN though several contentions were raised and argued as well, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focussed his attention on the discrepancy in the quantity of ganja alleged to be in possession of the detenu. In the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that the detenu was in possession of 4. 750 kgs of ganja in polythene bag. Out of which, two samples of each 50 gms were taken in two polythene covers. Apart from 4. 750 kgs, the detenu was also found to be in possession of four packets, each weighing 25 gms. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the remand report (booklet page No. 69), wherein, it is mentioned that ". . . the accused was found in possession of 4. 750 kgs of ganja in a violet colour polythene bag on his right hand. . . . ". In the Tamil translation of the Remand Report, it is stated as "matter in other language. " In the grounds of detention, the remaining ganja is mentioned as 4. 650 kgs were packed in the same bag. Pointing out the discrepancy in the weight, the learned counsel for the Petitioner at the foremost contended that the variation in respect of the quantity of ganja is likely to cause a confusion in the mind of the detenu depriving him of making effective representation.