JASADISH PRAWD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 16-10-1974 we directed the release of the detenu and announced that we would give our reasons later. We now proceed to state our reasons. We confess that we are not a little perturbed, by the very casual and often indifferent manner in which orders of detention appear to have been made in some of the cases that have come before us recently. In fact, in seme caces, we were left with an uneasy feeling that the very carelessness was designed to furnish ammunition for attack. We do hope, it was not so, but that it was mere carelessness. But, if it was carelessness, concenrned as we are with the liberty of the subject, we must hasten to say that detaining authorities should act with great caution, utmost circumspection and a deep regard for fundamental liberties. To act in any other manner, is truly unpardonable. To detain a person without trial, is indeed a serious matter. It offends the ordinary standards of fair-play observed and well estblished indemocratic countries. That is why. Courts of justice' accustomed to procedures involving fair-play, insist upon strict compliance with the safeguards prescribed by the Constitution and by the Parliament, where such detention becomes inevitable.

(2.) Turning to the facts of the present case, on 4-9-1974, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad made an order for the detention of the petitioner under Section 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the MAINTENANCE OF INTERNAL SECURITY (REPEAL) ACT, 1978. However, the petitioner Was not arrested till 26-9-1974. According to the respondents, he could not be arrested because he was absconding. According to the petitioner, he was always available, and he surrendered himself to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hyderabad on 26-9-1974 as soon as he cane to know of the detention, order. ' For the purposes of the present case. it is immaterial way he was not arrested till 26-9-1974. What is material is the circumstance that he surrendered to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Hyderabad on 26-9-1974. Ths Asst. Commissioner of Police who was informed about it, served the order of detention dated 4-9-1974 on the petitioner. A fresh cuces of detention dated 2o-6- 1774 was served on the petitioner in the Central Jail, Hyderabad. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention of 30-9-1974.

(3.) The grounds of detention allege that the petitioner is a partner of M/s Royal Laboratories, and M/s Royal Medical Hall. On 21-8-1974, 22-8-1974, 23-8-1974 and 29-8-1974, the Assistant Drue Controller, and two Drug Inspectors inspected the Laboratory and the Medical Hall and discovered the 'malpractices' mentioned in the grounds. The first 'malpractice' mentioned in the grounds relates to the sale of "petbidine". The allegation is that during the period from 1-1-1972 to 21-3-1974, the petitioner had manufactured 4 62, O53 ampoules of. pethidine. Out of them, 900 ampoules were used for analysis The sale records of Royal Medical Hall showed that during that period 3,93,675 ampoules of pethidins had been sold. Therefore, the petitioner should have been in possession of 68, 378 ampoules. But, on physical verification of the stock on hand, it was found that the petitioner was in possession of 24,000 ampoues only. The remaining 43,070 ampoules were un-accounted for, leading the detaining authority to conclude that the petitioner had "indulged in malpractice in respect of sale of pethidine to make undue profits", thereby disrupting the supply of an essential commodity.