BAWNE IGNATIUS JOHN REGO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, a detenu challenges the order of detention passed on 2-4-1998 by the 2nd Respondent under the provisions of section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 annexed and Marked Exh. A. Exh. B annexed to the petition contains the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention spelt out that the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner is indulging in smuggling the Narcotic Substances and is likely to continue that business unless he is detained.

(2.) THE story unfolded from the grounds of detention is that on 9-10-1997 the Security personnel had intercepted a suitcase while screening the baggage of Air India Flight No. AI-101, going to New York via London and this fact was communicated by the Security Personnel to the Air intelligence Unit of Customs by telephone and immediately the Air Intelligence Unit of Customs rushed to the X-ray machine counter at Module-II of Sahar Airport, Bombay and they found that the suitcase was carried by one Capt. Dastur who was to operate Flight No. AI-101 on that day as commander. The Air Intelligence Unit found that the Narcotic substances were concealed in that suitcase and according to the statement of Capt. Dastur, the suitcase was handed over by one Dinesh Pashtakiya at the instance of one Somani who had obtained Narcotic Drugs from one Rai. It is revealed from the statements of the Pashtakiya that the petitioner was keeping the suitcase for some time and had arranged for the suitcase to be handed over to his son Dinesh @ Derryl rego after it reaches London Derryl Rego is settled in u. S. A. For the purpose of this case, we are not concerned about the details of the offence that has been committed by the petitioner and others concerned. However, it is revealed from the grounds of detention that the petitioner was playing an important role in smuggling the Narcotic substances from India outside as an important link and he was a member of a gang to commit an organized crime. It is also relevant to be noted that the grounds of detention indicate that the petitioner was on an earlier occasion, arrested by Scotland Yard for the similar prejudicial activities. The Detaining Authority after relying upon the relevant materials and statements has come to the conclusion that the propensity and potentiality does very much exist to commit such offence by the petitioner again and with a view to preventing him from indulging him in Illicit Traffic in narcotic Substances in future, the detention order was passed.

(3.) THE main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Maneshinde, though he has raised several contentions in the writ petition, was confined only to the following points :