AZIMUDDIN ANSARI ASHOK SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of an order of detention under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Ordinance, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance for the sake of convenience) is under challenge in this application under Article 226 of Constitution.

(2.) Intelligence was collected by the Eastern Zonal Unit of the Narcotics Control, Bureau at Calcutta that the petitioner used to engage carriers to bring Charas from Nepal to Calcutta and that a consignment of Charas was expected on 12-1-1988 or 13-1-1988 through two of the petitioners carriers, Chinta Shah and Ainul Haque Ansari Alias Garju, who had been sent by the petitioner to Nepal from Calcutta a few days back. To work out this information vigilance was kept at Mikado Lodge at 68/1. Surya Sen Street, Calcutta-9, by the officers of the Narcotics Control, Bureau. At about 7 a.m. on 13-1-1988 Chinta Shah and Ainul Haque Ansari Alias Garju, were found carrying two bags, when they arrived at Mikado Lodge. On search of these bags in presence of two independent witnesses, a total quantity of 16.500 Kgs. of Charas (16.5 Kgs. from inside the leather folio bag of Chinta Shah and 10 Kgs, from inside the bag of Ainul Haque Ansari) was recovered and seized under Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). On interrogation, it was revealed by Chinta Shah and Ainul Haque that they had come to Mikado Lodge to deliver the goods to the petitioner, as the petitioner was to stay at Mikado Lodge on that date, as planned earlier. At about 11.30 a.m. on that date (i.e. 13-1-1988), the petitioner, was found entering room No. 15-A at Mikads Lodge. The officers of the Narcotics. Control, Bureau then intercepted the petitioner and on searching his belongings, 700 gms. of Charas were recovered from a V.I.P. Suit Case owned by him. Several cash-memos: one small diary and two bank pass books were also then recovered from the petitioner in presence of witnesses. Besides Chinta Shah and Ainul Haque, the petitioner. One Dwijendra Nath Maity and Satendra Mohan Mazumdar were interrogated by the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau. On 14-11988, the petitioner was arrested. A complaint was filed on 22- 3-1988, in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta, under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the Act against the petitioner, Ainul Haque and Chinta Shah. Prayers for bail were repeatedly made for these petitioners in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. These prayers for bail were rejected by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. On 23-6-1988, an order for bail in favour of Ainul Haque and Chinta Shah was passed by this Court. There was an application before this Court for relaxation/modification of conditions of bail granted to Ajnul Haque and Chinta Shah on 23-6-1988. That application for bail, registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 719 of 1988, was disposed by this Court on 11-7-1988 when the order for bail granted to Ainul Haque and Chinta Shah was modified to some extent by this Court There was no order for bail by this Court in respect of the petitioner. While the case against the petitioners. Chinta Shah and Ainul Haque in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, being Case No. C. 402 of 1988, was pending, an order of detention, dated 7-7-1988 was passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue New Delhi (the respondent No. 2) under Section 3 (1) of the Ordinance with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in the possession, purchase and sale of Narcotic Drugs. The order of detention alongwith grounds for detention, dated 7-7-1988 was served on the petitioner in the Presidency Jail, Calcutta on 9-7-1988. Thereafter on 21-9-1988, this Court was moved for issuing a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for setting the petitioner at liberty by quashing the order of detention and the grounds therefor.

(3.) Mr. Sengupta the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has challenged the order of detention on several grounds. Broadly speaking, the contention of Mr. Sengupta is that the order of detention is mala fide and that the provisions in Clause (v) in Section 6 (a) of the Ordinance have deprived the petitioner of making any representation regarding his detention to the appropriate government or to the Advisory Board.