Broad NDPS illicit traffic definition covers financing links; jurisdictional challenge to arrest and remand failed.

The definition of "illicit traffic" under the NDPS Act is broad and extends to financing, directly or indirectly, activities covered by that definition. Sections 24 and 27A address external dealings in narcotic drugs and financing or harbouring connected with illicit traffic, respectively. On the investigation material, the possibility of laundering and hawala funds being used to facilitate illicit traffic could not be ruled out, and the petitioner's role in financing such activity was not ex facie excluded. The accused had been produced before the competent court and remand was authorised by speaking orders that were not separately challenged. The jurisdictional challenge therefore failed, and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings and arrest under Sections 24 and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 before the Special Judge were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed in a writ petition seeking habeas corpus and related reliefs.

Analysis: The definition of "illicit traffic" under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is broad and covers not only direct dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances but also financing, directly or indirectly, the activities listed in that definition. Section 24 punishes external dealings in narcotic drugs in contravention of Section 12, while Section 27A specifically punishes financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders. At the investigation stage, the material collected indicated the possibility of laundering and hawala money being routed to facilitate illicit traffic, and the role of the petitioner in financing such activity could not be ruled out. The petitioner had been produced before the competent court, remand had been authorized by speaking orders, and those remand orders were not challenged in appropriate proceedings. In these circumstances, the proceedings could not be said to be ex facie without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to jurisdiction failed, and the petition was dismissed.

---