TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (11) TMI 93
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1988 (Central Act No. 46 of 1988) with a view to prevent the Petitioner from indulging in the smuggling and selling of Narcotic Drugs. This writ petition was allowed on 8-11-1996 for the reasons to be recorded later on. 2.Brief facts leading to the passing of the impugned detention order are that on March 6, 1995 the Income-tax Department Officers during search of the house of the petitioner recovered some material in form of powder which looked like narcotics and they conveyed information on telephone to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division Ropar. On receiving this information a team of Central Excise Officers reached at the said premises and the material recovered was presented to them by the Income-tax authorities, who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fall under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. In the meantime on 21-3-1995 second sample was sent to CFSL, Chandigarh and the said laboratory gave report holding the material to be heroine. Thus the sample was sent for examination, while the petitioner was behind the bars. 4.It is further the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the first report, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rup Nagar had granted bail to the petitioner on 21-3-1995 with a rider that if the report of the CFSL, Chandigarh would be positive the Department was at liberty to move for the cancellation of bail of the petitioner. On this pretext, the cancellation of bail was sought and on 29-4-1995 the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and he was again take....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e process and thus it was pleaded that the order copy Annexure P.1 was valid. 6.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the detention order is a result of mala fides and the order is bad in the eye of law as the respondents have not been in a position to explain the delay of 9 months in passing the order from the date of prejudicial act. Therefore, quashment of the order Annexure P.1 is sought as it is contrary to law as defined under Section 3(3) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in NDPS Act, 1988. Mr. Ramandeep Singh and Mr. D.D. Sharma, learned Counsels for respondent have opposed this contention raised by the petitioner and h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on'ble Apex Court was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner but in order to keep the petitioner behind the bars the detention order was passed in the mean time. 9.This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is convincing and I am of the opinion that the acts and conduct of the respondents seem to be vindictive and mala fides and the detention order has been passed as a punitive measure against the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also challenged the validity of the second report of the CFSL and has vehemently argued that since the respondents had been wreaking personal vengeance against the petitioner it cannot be taken that the second report was valid. I find force in the contention of the learned C....