9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate had the power to remand the petitioner in judicial custody for more than 15 days during the investigation. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released if the initial detention was illegal, even though subsequent detention is valid. Detailed Analysis: 1. Power of Metropolitan Magistrate to Remand Beyond 15 Days: The judgment clarifies that Parliament was aware of the time required to constitute Special Courts under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. During the transitional period before Special Courts are established, the offences under the Act are to be tried by a Court of Session as per Section 36D. The Court emphasized that the Parliament deliberately used the phrase "be tried by a Court of Session" and not "be dealt with by a Court of Session." This indicates that during the transitional period, the offences must be tried by the Court of Session, but the procedural aspects, including remand, must follow the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Section 36A(1)(b) of the NDPS Act states that a Magistrate can authorize detention for a period not exceeding fifteen days in the whole. However, the Court noted that this provision could not be implemented until Special Courts are constituted. Until then, the Magistrate has the power under Section 167 of the CrPC to order detention for 15 days at a time in judicial custody. The Court rejected the argument that "15 days in the whole" means 15 days at a time, emphasizing that the CrPC provisions regarding committal proceedings remain applicable until Special Courts are constituted. 2. Validity of Detention on the Date of Hearing: The judgment addressed whether the petitioner should be released if the initial detention was illegal, even though the subsequent detention is valid. The Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that the legality of detention must be assessed at the time of the return and not at the institution of the proceedings. The Court noted that the Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled that detention must be valid only up to the date of the return. Instead, if the detention becomes valid due to subsequent events, it should be considered lawful at the time of the hearing. The Court highlighted that habeas corpus proceedings aim to ensure that detention is legally justified. If the detention becomes valid before the hearing, the petitioner cannot be released solely based on prior invalidity. This interpretation aligns with the principle that the Court must consider the present circumstances of detention. In the present case, the petitioner's detention was initially ordered by the Metropolitan Magistrate and later by the Court of Session after the filing of the challan. The Court found that the detention orders by the Metropolitan Magistrate were not illegal, as the Magistrate had the power under the CrPC to order detention for 15 days at a time. Consequently, the petitioner's detention was valid at the time of the hearing, and the habeas corpus petition was dismissed. Conclusion: The judgment clarifies that during the transitional period before Special Courts are constituted under the NDPS Act, offences are to be tried by a Court of Session, and procedural aspects, including remand, must follow the CrPC. The legality of detention must be assessed at the time of the hearing, and if the detention becomes valid due to subsequent events, the petitioner cannot be released based on prior invalidity. The petition was dismissed as the detention was found to be valid at the time of the hearing.
|
