2011 (4) TMI 1217 - SC - Customs

Detention orders - Held that - Appeal allowed. Detention orders quashed. In the present case, the charge against the detenu was of selling expired drugs after changing their labels. Surely the relevant provisions in the Indian Penal Code and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act were sufficient to deal with this situation. Hence, in our opinion, for this reason also the detention order in question was illegal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Detention Order
2. Grounds for Detention
3. Procedural Safeguards and Fundamental Rights
4. Sufficiency of Ordinary Criminal Law

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order:
The Supreme Court found the detention order dated 08.04.2010 against the detenu, who was accused of selling expired drugs with tampered labels, invalid. The Court noted that the grounds for detention did not provide specific details about similar cases where bail was granted, rendering the statement mere "ipse dixit" and unreliable. The absence of detailed information about the alleged bail orders, such as dates, bail application numbers, and whether they pertained to co-accused in the same or similar cases, was deemed insufficient to justify the detention order.

2. Grounds for Detention:
The Court scrutinized the grounds of detention, particularly para 4, which mentioned the possibility of the detenu's release on bail due to similar cases where bail was granted. The Court emphasized that the detaining authority failed to provide specific details about these similar cases, making the statement unreliable and insufficient to sustain the detention order. The Court cited previous judgments, including T.V. Sravanan alias S.A.R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi Vs. State through Secretary and Anr., and A. Shanthi (Smt.) Vs. Govt. of T.N. and Ors., which held that a detention order under preventive detention law is illegal if the detenu is already in jail and no bail application is pending.

3. Procedural Safeguards and Fundamental Rights:
The Court underscored the importance of procedural safeguards in cases of preventive detention, emphasizing that Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution, which permits preventive detention, is an exception to Article 21. The Court highlighted that fundamental rights, including the right to liberty, are meant to protect civil liberties and should not be nullified by preventive detention without strict adherence to procedural safeguards. The Court cited various judgments, including Haradhan Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and A.K. Roy Vs. Union of India, to stress that preventive detention laws must be strictly construed and procedural safeguards meticulously followed.

4. Sufficiency of Ordinary Criminal Law:
The Court questioned whether the ordinary criminal law was sufficient to deal with the situation. It concluded that the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act were adequate to address the charges against the detenu, rendering recourse to preventive detention law unnecessary and illegal. The Court emphasized that preventive detention should only be used in exceptional cases where ordinary criminal law is insufficient, and this was not such a case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and quashed the detention order. The Court directed the immediate release of the detenu unless required in any other case. The judgment reiterated the importance of procedural safeguards and the sufficiency of ordinary criminal law in dealing with the charges against the detenu. The decision in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 755 OF 2011 also governed other related appeals, leading to the quashing of detention orders in those cases as well.