9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged offence under Sections 21 and 23 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred to as N.D.P.S. Act). 2. The prosecution alleges that this respondent, who is of Indian origin but settled in Enlgland, alongwith the other accused, had caused export of huge quantity of Hashis to Port Ashdode, Israel, concealed in cartons of vacuum flasks, consigned from Madras under the names of V.J. Exports, K.J. Exports and Viswa Jothi Exim Corporation, which are bogus companies, for taking to Dubai in the trafficking of drugs in connivance with one Dubai based trafficker by name Khalid Bhai. It is also alleged that when the Port Authorities of Ashdode, Israel, were able to detect the concealm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supervening circumstances, which is not alleged in this case, that as there cannot be a revision against the interim orders as prohibited under Section 397(2) of the Code, the order of bail, which is an interim order, cannot be challenged in the High Court under Section 439 of the Code, that the intention of this Section cannot be thwarted by filing the petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the petition itself is not maintainable. 5. Both sides have cited series of decisions in support of their arguments. In the meanwhile the Division Bench of this court in Tamizharasi 2 Others v. Asstt. Director, Narcotics Control Bureau ( H.C.P. Nos. 1675, 1676 and 1692 of 1944 - decided on 14-12-1994 ) has considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as he has been detained under P.I.T. N.D.P.S. Act, 1988 from 29-7-1984 onwards, his custody now is only on account of the detention under the P.I.T. N.D.P.S. Act and so far as this offence is concerned, he is deemed to be not in custody as the sureties are not cancelled till now and hence he is not entitled to invoke Section 167 of Criminal Procedure. 7. Soon after the release of the respondent on bail on 25-7-1994, he was detained by the order under P.I.T. N.D.P.S. Act, 1988, with effect from 27-9-1994. It appears that though this court has set aside that order, the Supreme Court had stayed that order and therefore the detention still continues under the said Act. While the detention under P.I.T. N.D.P.S. Act continued, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, the only question now to be considered is whether the accused is detained in custody for more than 90 days, as the punishment for the offence alleged, is more than 10 years. Even though the respondent was released on bail on 25-7-1994, this order was cancelled by the interim order of this court dated 14-9-1994. After cancellation of trial, it became unnecessary to re-arrest this petitioner because already he is in detention under the P.I.T. N.D.P.S. Act. When once the bail granted by the Special Judge is cancelled and the accused also is in detention, certainly the accused is restored to the original position as remand prisoner from the date of the cancellation of the bail. The records reveal that the respondent was produced before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
