PARVEZ QUADAR KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Parvez Quadir Khan has been detained in Naini Central Jail, Allahabad since 3-1-1989 in pursuance of a detention order passed by Sri K.L. Verma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India on 7-7-1989 u/s 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (New Act No. 46 of 1988 w.e.f. 8-9-1988). The allegations against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are as follows :-

(2.) On the basis of confidential information the officials of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Varanasi intercepted an auto rikshaw No. UHZ 648 coming from the side of Varuna bridge on 14-6-1988 at 9.50 hrs in front of the gate of Taj hotel near Taksal Cinema in the city of Varanasi. The petitioner arid his associate one Raghu Nandan Sharma s/o Ram Ballabh were sitting in the auto rikshaw but as soon as the auto rikshaw was stopped by the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau they tried to run away towards north after alighting from the auto rikshaw. However they were apprehended by the officials. When the petitioner and Raghu Nandan Sharma were searched in the presence of the witnesses then from the polythene packet in the hand of Raghunandan Sharma some brown coloured powder was recovered. The powder being tested by the officers with the help of the test kit, it was found to be heroine/brown sugar. As possession, concealment etc. of heroine/brown sugar was in violation of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 punishable u/s 21 of the said Act, the recovered brown sugar which weighed 700 gms. was sealed in presence of the witnesses after taking its sample. The recovered brown sugar packets were sealed as also signed by the petitioners and the witnesses. A copy of the recovery memo prepared on the spot was handed over to the petitioner and Reghunandan Sharma. In the statement given by the petitioner to the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau the petitioner admitted his arrest etc. as is mentioned above and stated that he along with Raghunandan Sharma was going to deliver the said heroine to a trader. He also admitted that at the instance of one Nisar he was going to Taj hotel and that in the past also he and Raghunandan Sharma had taken the material for Nisar. The petitioner also admitted that the work done by him was illegal and entailing severe punishment. Almost identical statement was made by Raghunandan Sharma to the officials of Narcotic Control Bureau. Exercising the powers u/s 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 the officers arrested the petitioner and Raghunandan Sharma and produced them before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Varanasi on 15-6-1988 who remanded them to judicial custody for 14 days. The ground further states that the petitioner applied for bail on 16-6-1988 which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was also disclosed that in the bail application the petitioner had denied that any brown sugar etc. had been recovered from them. It was thereafter mentioned that bail application of the petitioner was allowed by IInd Addl. District Judge, Varanasi on 23-6-1988. The ground further Went to say that Reghunandan Sharma had also applied for bail which had been rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 16-6-1988 whereafter he had moved the application for bail before the Court of Session, Varanasi which too was rejected on 20-6-1988. The order further narrates that Raghunandan Sharma had also made an application for bail again on 2-7-1988 which was pending. The ground went on to say that it was not desirable to divulge the source of secret information which resulted in the arrest of the petitioner. However as the activity of the petitioner indicated that the petitioner was likely to transport heroine in future hence with a view to prevent him from acting in that fashion it was necessary to pass the order of detention hence the said order was passed against him.

(3.) The petitioner challenged his detention under the aforesaid order by means of the present petition. Consequently a notice was issued to the opposite parties. The counter affidavit was filed by Sri K.L. Verma detaining authority whereafter the rejoinder affidavit was also filed. The petitioner again filed supplementary affidavit raising some new points to which the supplementary counter affidavit was also filed. We will deal with these points hereafter.