2022 (6) TMI 1311 - HC - Indian Laws

Detention order - illicit drug trafficking/smugglig - narcotic drugs - seizure of 92 gm brown sugar (Heroin) and 7600 nos yaba tablets - non application of mind or not - failure on the part of the detaining authority to supply material documents prevented the petitioner from making effective representation against the grounds of detention or not - HELD THAT - There is no legal requirement that every document mentioned in the detention order shall have to be invariably supplied to the detenue. Court is required to examine as to whether copies of the documents which formed the foundation of the detention order were supplied to the detenue so as to enable him to make an effective representation against the order of his detention. Unless the detenue can show as to how he was prejudiced by non-supply of a particular document, the detenue cannot gain any benefit merely by agitating that a document mentioned in the detention order was not supplied to him. It is not necessary to supply each and every document which have been referred to in the detention order merely for the purpose of narration of facts. The contextual facts of the given case depict that the detenue, who used to run his hotel business allegedly stored huge quantity of NDPS in his dwelling house near the railway station at Agartala. On 05.11.2019 police conducted raid in his dwelling house and recovered 7600 yaba tablets in 38 packets and 92 gms of brown sugar from his possession - It emerges from the record that the detenue put his signature on the said document in acknowledgment of the receipt of the letter. Communication dated 28.06.2021 of SDPO, Amtali which was forwarded by the SP, West to the Director General of Police has also been referred to in the said communication dated 14.07.2021. Apparently the said communication dated 28.06.2021 was also received by the detenue. In acknowledgement of the receipt of the documents he also put his signature on the said document. The record also goes to show that all papers in connection with the pending criminal cases were also served on the detenue. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the proposal received from the DGP was not served on the detenue does not gain ground. The order reflects the anxiety of the detaining authority to prevent the petitioner from getting any further opportunity in smuggling narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and such anxiety was generated from the past conduct and antecedents of the petitioner - the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution has been observed by the detaining authority by indicating to the detenue the grounds of his detention and providing him full opportunities of making an effective representation against the order of detention. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
2. Non-indication of the status of criminal cases in the detention order.
3. Failure to apprise the detenue of the specific authorities for representation.
4. Non-specification of the period of detention in the order.
5. Illegibility of documents supplied to the detenue.
6. Non-supply of the proposal of the Director General of Police to the detenue.
7. Non-consideration of bail orders and other judicial orders.
8. Non-communication of the detention order to the Central Government.
9. Lack of evidence that the detaining officer was specially empowered.
10. Lack of awareness about the Advisory Board's approval.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-application of mind by the detaining authority:
The petitioner argued that the detaining authority did not apply its mind while issuing the detention order. The court, however, found that the detaining authority had detailed grounds for detention, including the petitioner's involvement in multiple NDPS cases and continuous criminal activities. The court concluded that the order was made consciously and with due consideration of the materials available.

2. Non-indication of the status of criminal cases in the detention order:
The petitioner contended that the detention order did not indicate the status of the criminal cases against him. The court noted that the order mentioned the petitioner's involvement in specific NDPS cases and his continued illegal activities despite being on bail. The court concluded that the detaining authority had sufficient grounds to issue the detention order based on the petitioner's criminal antecedents.

3. Failure to apprise the detenue of the specific authorities for representation:
The petitioner argued that he was not informed of the specific authorities to whom he could make a representation. The court found that the detention order explicitly mentioned the petitioner's right to make representations to the Central/State Government and the Advisory Board. The court held that the petitioner was adequately informed of his rights.

4. Non-specification of the period of detention in the order:
The petitioner claimed that the detention order did not specify the period of detention. The court observed that the order was confirmed for one year from the date of detention, as per the statutory provisions. The court found no violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights on this ground.

5. Illegibility of documents supplied to the detenue:
The petitioner contended that the documents supplied to him were illegible, preventing him from making an effective representation. The court noted that the documents were explained to the petitioner in his mother tongue and that he acknowledged receipt of the documents. The court concluded that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the alleged illegibility of the documents.

6. Non-supply of the proposal of the Director General of Police to the detenue:
The petitioner argued that he was not provided with a copy of the DGP's proposal, which formed the basis of the detention order. The court found that the petitioner had acknowledged receipt of the relevant communications and documents, including the DGP's proposal. The court held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the alleged non-supply of the proposal.

7. Non-consideration of bail orders and other judicial orders:
The petitioner claimed that the detaining authority did not consider the bail orders and other judicial orders in the criminal cases against him. The court noted that the detaining authority was aware of the petitioner's bail status and his continued involvement in illegal activities. The court concluded that the detaining authority had applied its mind and that the detention order was valid.

8. Non-communication of the detention order to the Central Government:
The petitioner argued that he was not made aware of whether the detention order was communicated to the Central Government. The court found that the detaining authority had sent the report to the Central Government within the statutory period. The court held that the procedural requirements were met.

9. Lack of evidence that the detaining officer was specially empowered:
The petitioner contended that there was no evidence to show that the officer who issued the detention order was specially empowered. The court found that the detaining authority had the necessary empowerment to issue the order under the PIT NDPS Act. The court dismissed this ground of challenge.

10. Lack of awareness about the Advisory Board's approval:
The petitioner claimed that he was not made aware of the Advisory Board's approval of the detention order. The court noted that the Advisory Board had examined the petitioner and recorded his statement, and that the petitioner did not submit any representation against the detention order. The court concluded that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to make a representation.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding that the detaining authority had followed the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court held that the detention order was valid and justified based on the petitioner's criminal antecedents and continued involvement in illegal activities.