KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER ACS HOME DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order bearing No. PITNDPS 43 of 2022 dtd. 28/12/2022 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been detained under Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act"), has been impugned by the petitioner on the following grounds:-

(2.) The respondents have filed the response stating therein that the detention order dtd. 28/12/2022 was issued against the petitioner as three FIRs in drug trafficking cases had been registered against him, two in Police Station, Udhampur and one in Police Station, Rehambal. In one FIR bearing No. 432/2018 under Sec. 8(a)/21/22 NDPS Act of Police Station, Udhampur, the petitioner was convicted and a fine of Rs.6000.00was imposed upon him by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur vide order dtd. 29/1/2019. In FIR No. 76/2021 under Sec. 8/21/22/27-A/29 NDPS Act of Police Station, Udhampur and FIR No. 201/2021 under Sec. 8/21/22 NDPS Act of Police Station, Rehmbal, the petitioner has been released on bail. Besides these FIRs, two entries were made in the Daily Diary of the Police Station, Udhampur due to repeated involvement of the petitioner in drug trafficking. Taking into consideration the activities of the petitioner, he was ordered to be detained under the Act as his activities were posing serious threat to the health and welfare of the people of District Udhampur and other adjoining areas. The detention order was executed by PSI Raman Kumar of Police Station, Udhampur and the documents pertaining to detention of the petitioner were provided to him and the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the petitioner in Hindi/Dogri language, which he fully understood and in acknowledgment thereof, his signatures were obtained. He was also made aware that he can make a representation against the order of detention. More so, the copies of FIRs along with seizure memos, reports of FSL have been provided to the petitioner at the time of execution of the detention warrant. In nutshell, the stand of the respondents is that the procedural safeguards have been followed at the time of issuance as well as the execution of the order of detention.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been detained on vague grounds and in fact the delay in passing the detention order snapped the causal live link between the prejudicial activities and purpose of detention.