TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (2) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1, 1990. 2. Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat (the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 11/90) hereinafter referred to as 'Dharmendra' is the son of Suganchand Kanhaiyyalal Chelawat (the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1990) hereinafter referred to as 'Suganchand'. In the grounds of detention furnished to the appellants it is stated that on September 21, 1988 the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay Zonal Unit, searched the godown of Siddharth Trotters Pvt. Ltd., Kothari Mansion, at 357, S.V.P. Road, Bombay and five card board cartons containing in all 2,51,000 mandrax tablets weighing 125.5 Kgs. and valued at Rs. 7,53,000/- were seized from there. During the follow-up investigation the officers of the Central Excise & Customs searched the premises of Suganchand at Indore (M.P.) which resulted in the recovery of 51 Kgs. of mandrax tablets from a Maruti Van parked in the house compound on September 22/23, 1988 which was seized. In addition to 20.500 Kgs. of Mandrax tablets, 148.300 Kgs. of methaqualone powder and 97.700 Kgs. of white powder was recovered from the residence itself. Suganchand in his statement which was recorded on September 23, 1988 stated tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, the learned counsel for the appellants has urged that since the appellants were in the custody on October 11, 1988, the date of passing of the impugned order of detention, there was no apprehension that the appellants would be engaging in any prejudicial activity and the order for detention of the appellants under Section 3(1) of the Act could not be validly passed. In support of the aforesaid submission Shri Harjinder Singh has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and Others [1985 (4) S.C.C. 232], Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra & Others [1986 (4) S.C.C. 378] and N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Another [1989 (4) S.C.C. 418]. 7.  The learned Attorney General, on the other hand, has supported the decision of the High Court and has submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the present cases the orders for detention of the appellants were validly passed on October 11, 1988. The submissions of the learned Attorney General is that the appellants had been remanded to judicial custody upto October 13, 1988 only and the detaining authority could have apprehended that the said remand may not be exte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e can make a valid order of detention a few days before the person is likely to be released." 9. In Masood Alam etc. v. Union of India and Others [1973 (1) S.C.C. 551] it has been held that merely because the person concerned has been served with the order of detention while in custody when it is expected that he would soon be released that service cannot invalidate the order of detention. This Court has observed as under : "The real hurdle in making an order of detention against a person already in custody is based on the view that it is futile to keep a person in dual custody under two different orders but this objective cannot hold good if the earlier custody is without doubt likely to cease very soon and the detention order is made merely with the object of rendering it operative when the previous custody is about to cease." 10. In Dulal Roy v. District Magistrate, Burdwan [1975 (1) S.C.C. 837] it was held that if a person was serving a long time of imprisonment or was in jail custody as an undertrial and there was no immediate or early prospect of his being released on bail or otherwise, the authority would not legitimately be satisfied on the basis of his past history or a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....true, the bail application had to be opposed and in case bail was granted, challange against that order in the higher forum had to be raised. Merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an under-trial prisoner was likely to get bail an order of detention under the National Security Act should not ordinarily be passed. We are inclined to agree with counsel for the petitioner that the order of detention in the circumstances is not sustainable and is contrary to the well settled principles indicated by this Court in a series of cases relating to the preventive detention." 14. In Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra & Others (Supra) after considering the earlier decisions this Court has observed : "If there was an imminent possibility of the man being set at liberty and his detention coming to an end, then it appears, as a principle, if his detention is otherwise necessary and justified then there is nothing to prevent the appropriate authorities from being satisfied about the necessity of passing an appropriate order detaining the person concerned." 15. In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar and Others [1986 (4) S.C.C. 416] it has been laid down : "If a m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....person is already in jail and where should one find it? The learned judge has rejected the contention that it can be found from material other than the grounds of detention and the connected facts therein and has held that apart from the grounds of detention and the connected facts therein, there cannot be any other material which can enter into the satisfaction of the detaining authority. The learned judge has also observed that if the activities of the detenu are not isolated or casual and are continuous or part of the transaction or racket, then, there may be need to put the person under preventive detention, notwithstanding the fact that he is under custody in connection with a case. The learned judge has quoted the following observations from the judgment of this Court in Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra (Supra) : "But where the offences in respect of which the detenue is accused are so interlinked and continuous in character and are of such nature that these affect continuous maintenance of essential supplies and thereby jeopardize the security of the state, then subject to other conditions being fulfilled, a man being in detention would not detract from the order bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ody implies that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities. 21. If the present cases are examined in the light of the aforesaid principles, it can be said that the first condition is satisfied in as much as the grounds of detention show that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the appellants were in custody on the date of passing of the order of detention. Can it be said that there was a compelling reason for passing the order for the detention of the appellants, although they were in custody? The learned Attorney General wants the said question to be answered in the affirmative. He has invited our attention to the grounds of detention and has submitted that the appellants were found engaging in the transportation and abetting in the export inter-state of Psychotropic S....