9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority. 2. Unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation made by the petitioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Ground No. 1: Non-application of mind by the detaining authority The petitioner argued that the detaining authority did not apply its mind while passing the detention order dated December 4, 1990. The counsel for the petitioner pointed to paragraph 21 of the grounds of detention, which stated: "Even though prosecution proceedings under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are likely to be initiated against you, I am satisfied that there is compelling necessity, in view of the likelihood of your indulging in illicit traffic of Narcotic Drugs as is evident from the trend of your activities, to detain you under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988." The petitioner contended that the detaining authority was unaware of the correct facts because a complaint under the NDPS Act, 1985, had already been filed on November 7, 1990. Despite this, the detaining authority mentioned that prosecution proceedings were "likely to be initiated." The petitioner also argued that since he was already in custody and a case had been initiated against him under the NDPS Act, 1985, there was no justification for the satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the compelling necessity for detention. The Court found no merit in these contentions. It noted that although a complaint had been lodged and a custody warrant issued, the petitioner had been arrested and detained in another case under the Arms Act and Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the warrant from the Varanasi Court was never executed. The Court held that the detaining authority was justified in considering that prosecution proceedings under the NDPS Act, 1985, were "likely to be initiated" until the petitioner was brought before the concerned court. The Court emphasized that the satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the compelling necessity for detention depends on subjective satisfaction, and if sufficient material was placed before the authority, the court should not interfere. The Court also dismissed the argument that there was no possibility of the petitioner being released on bail. It noted that the detaining authority was aware of the bail application filed by the petitioner and was justified in recording the satisfaction of compelling necessity for issuing the detention order. Ground No. 2: Unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation The petitioner contended that his representation dated December 22, 1990, was disposed of on January 25, 1991, indicating a delay of 33 days, which remained unexplained. The Court acknowledged that unexplained delay in disposing of a representation could lead to the release of the detenu. However, it noted that the High Court had examined the original records and found no inference of slackness, callousness, casualness, inaction, or leisurely treatment of the petitioner's representation. The High Court's observations revealed that the representation was forwarded immediately, received in the Ministry of Finance on December 27, 1990, and sent to the Narcotic Bureau, Varanasi, on December 31, 1990. The delay in receiving comments from the Narcotic Bureau was attributed to postal delays and riots in Varanasi. The Court agreed with the High Court's conclusion that there was no delay in disposing of the representation. Additional Grounds: Delay in consideration of representation against Section 10(1) declaration The petitioner also challenged the delay in considering his representation against the declaration issued under Section 10(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988. The representation dated March 31, 1992, was submitted on April 10, 1992, and rejected on May 27, 1992. The respondents explained that the delay was due to the representation being wrongly marked to another branch and postal delays. The Court found the explanation satisfactory, noting that the period taken by postal authorities cannot be attributed to inaction or callousness by the authorities. The Court emphasized that the representation was not against the detention order but against the Section 10(1) declaration, and the time taken was reasonable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, agreeing with the High Court's findings and emphasizing the need for detaining authorities to handle preventive detention cases with care and expeditiousness. The Court also highlighted the importance of applying mind and showing awareness in cases where detention orders are passed for persons already in jail under other laws.
|
