TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1807
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), thereby ordering the detention of the Petitioner for a period of one year from the date of his detention, i.e., 7th September, 2023. 2. The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are as under: i. The present Petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the following cases: a.) FIR no. 631/2003 under Sections: 21/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'), registered at PS: Kotwali, Delhi for the effected recovery of 08 grams of brown sugar. The Petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 3rd November, 2006, passed by the Learned Special Judge (NDPS), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. b.) FIR no. 80/2009 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS: Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch (Delhi) for the effected recovery of 100 grams of brown sugar. The Petitioner was convicted for a period of 3 months and 15 days vide order dated 06th January, 2011, passed by the Learned Special Judge (NDPS), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. c.) FIR no. 200/2012 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS: Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch (Delhi) for the effected recovery of 275....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Department of Revenue (PITNDPS Unit), i.e., the Detaining Authority (Respondent no. 1) through his counsel, which stood rejected vide memorandum bearing F. No. U-11013/68/2023-PITNDPS, issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (PITNDPS Unit), i.e., the Detaining Authority (Respondent no. 2) on 31st October, 2023. v. Thereafter the Petitioner sent a representation to the Chairman, PITNDPS Advisory Board, High Court of Delhi and on 2nd November, 2023; he was produced before the Hon'ble Central Advisory Board, Delhi High Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), wherein the detention order was confirmed by the Board. vi. Subsequently on 29th November, 2023, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (PITNDPS Unit) i.e., Respondent no. 2 under powers conferred to him under Section 9(f) of the PITNDPS Act confirmed the aforementioned detention order dated 31st August, 2023 and under Section 11 of the PITNDPS Act, ordered for the detention of the Petitioner for a period of one year with effect from 7th September, 2023. 3. The facts with respect to which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sector A-6, Narela, Delhi was intercepted by officers of PS Narcotics Cell Crime Branch Delhi at Bishnoi, Dharamsala, Bela Road, Delhi. During the search of Rizauddin @ Riyajuddin @ Riyajudden @ Pintu i.e. you S/o Dukhi Ansari, a total of 275 grams of Heroin was recovered. You i.e. Rizauddin @ Riyajuddin @ Riyajudden @ Pintu were arrested on 24.07.2012 and were remanded to two days police custody. b) A Complaint in the case was filed in the Court of Special Judge, (NDPS) Tis Hazari, Delhi against you i.e. Rizauddin @ Riyajuddin@ Riyajudden @ Pintu under the NDPS Act, 1985. c) On completion of trial, Rizauddin @ Riyajuddin @ Riyajudden@ Pintu i.e. you were convicted for 15 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the Hon'ble Court of NDPS Judge Tis Hazari Court vide Order dated 12.02.2016. The High Court of Delhi vide Order dated 31.07.2020 suspended the sentence of the appellant till the hearing of appeal on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent/Duty Magistrate. iv. FIR No. 253/2021 Dated 16.06.2021 U/s 21/25/29 NDPS Act, 198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....now; that you used to supply heroin in Delhi on getting it from Toufiq @ Salman; that after release from jail you again contacted Toufiq @ Salman and started suppling heroin to Hina Khatun of Narela after getting it from Toufiq. h) Further, in course of investigation, Anita was also arrested on 25.06.2021 under the NDPS Act, 1985 and 50 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession Anita. i) Samples of the seized contraband were sent to FSL, Rohini for chemical examination on 25.06.2021. The FSL vide report dated 27.05.2022 has confirmed that (i) Exhibits 'XA' & 'YA' were found to contain Diacetylmorphine, 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Acetylcodeine, Trimethoprim, Caffeine and Acetaminophen (ii) Exhibit 'ZA' was found to contain Diacetylmorphine, 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Acetylcodeine, Trimethoprim and Acetaminophen. Another report of FSL, Rohini dated 27.05.2022 confirmed that the exhibit 'A1' was found to contain Diacetylmorphine, 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Acetylcodeine, Trimethoprim & Acetaminophen. j) A Chargesheet has been filed in the Hon'ble Court of ASJ, Special Judge, NDPS Act, 1985 Rohini Court under the NDPS Act, 1985 against (i) Heena Khatun (ii) Sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... citizen in the world, besides deleterious effect on the national economy. The offences committed by you i.e. Rizauddin @ Riyajuddin @ Riyajudden @ Pintu are so interlinked and continuous in character and are of such nature that these affect security and health of the nation. The grievous nature and gravity of offences committed by you i.e. Rizauddin @ Riyajuddin @ Riyajudden @ Pintu in a well-planned manner clearly establishes your continued propensity and inclination to engage in such acts of prejudicial activities. Considering the facts of the present case mentioned in foregoing paras, I have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that there is ample opportunity for Rizauddin @ Riyajuddin @ Riyajudden @ Pintu i.e. you to repeat the above serious prejudicial acts. Hence, I am satisfied that in the meantime you i.e. Rizauddin @ Riyajuddin @ Riyajudden @ Pintu should be immobilized and there is a need to prevent you i.e. Rizauddin @ Riyajuddin @ Riyajudden @ Pintu from engaging in such illicit traffic of narcotic drug and psychotropic substances in future by detention under section 3(1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing a sentence of 15 years in case FIR no. 200/2012 was released on bail after suspension of his sentence by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in criminal appeal bearing no. CRL. A. 398/2016, which is presently pending. It is submitted that since the Petitioner already stands convicted in an NDPS case, there is no reasonable possibility of him being released on bail in the subsequent FIR, which is pending trial. It is submitted that it is the admitted case of the Respondents that the application seeking bail by the Petitioner in case FIR no. 253/2021 was rejected by the Learned Special Court (NDPS Act) on 29th August, 2023. 5. ii) It is further submitted that in the aforesaid pending trial, the Petitioner was released on interim bail twice, i.e., by the Learned Special Court (NDPS Act) vide order dated 21st May, 2022 for a period of 10 days as well as by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 10th January, 2023 for a period 6 weeks respectively and no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the Petitioner has misused the liberty granted to him during the period of interim bail or indulged in any prejudicial activities in order to come to a conclusion that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....version) various documents but such documents were not available in the list of documents (Hindi version), as such the Petitioner could not make effective representation before Respondent no. 1 and on account of the same, the impugned detention orders are liable to be quashed as the Petitioner is a semi-literate person and is able to read and write Hindi with great difficulty and can only sign in Hindi. 5. v) Reliance is placed by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the following judgements: i) Gurminder Singh @ Lalli vs. Union of India and Others 1999 SCC OnLine Del 85 ii) Sharafat Sheikh @ Md. Ayub vs. Union of India and Another 2022:DHC:3401-DB SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 & 2 6. i) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 and 2 has drawn the attention of this Court to the 'grounds of detention' annexed with the impugned order of detention dated 31st August, 2023 to demonstrate that the Petitioner continuously engaged in the prejudicial activities pertaining to illicit traffic in narcotics and psychotropic substances, which pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of not only the citizens of this country but t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was that there were two sets of compilations which were supplied to the Petitioner having separate indices i.e., one in English and one in Hindi. It is further stated that the Hindi index was the true translated copy of the English index. The English index and the Hindi index were identical. However, some of the documents were not attached in the Hindi compilation and were attached only in the English compilation. 4. This Court has perused the full compilation of documents which were given to the Petitioner and it is clear from a perusal of the same that the only documents which were not attached with the Hindi compilation are those which were otherwise in Hindi and were attached in the English compilation." After perusal of the record, it is reflected that the documents which are not in the compilation with the Hindi index are only those which are originally in Hindi and have been supplied in the compilation having the English index. Thus, insofar as the present contention is concerned, the same is rejected. 9. The submissions on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 and 2 with respect to the object of the PITNDPS Act, is not in dispute. However, the detention order sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r propriety of the said satisfaction contemplated by Section 3(1)(a) cannot be questioned before the Courts." *** *** *** 17. In Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India [Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 531 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 25], the judicial commitment to strike down illegal detention, even when the petition on which rule was issued did not have the requisite pleadings, was highlighted in the following words : (SCC p. 538, para 5) "5. ... Where large masses of people are poor, illiterate and ignorant and access to the courts is not easy on account of lack of financial resources, it would be most unreasonable to insist that the petitioner should set out clearly and specifically the grounds on which he challenges the order of detention and make out a prima facie case in support of those grounds before a rule is issued or to hold that the detaining authority should not be liable to do any thing more than just meet the specific grounds of challenge put forward by the petitioner in the petition. The burden of showing that the detention is in accordance with the procedure established by law has always been placed by this Court on the detaining....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elivered [Rekha v. State of T.N., (2011) 5 SCC 244 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 596] little in excess of a decade back by a Bench of 3 Judges. 24. In Rekha v. State of T.N. [Rekha v. State of T.N., (2011) 5 SCC 244 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 596], this Court observed that : (SCC pp. 253-55, paras 21 & 29) "21. It is all very well to say that preventive detention is preventive not punitive. The truth of the matter, though, is that in substance a detention order of one year (or any other period) is a punishment of one year's imprisonment. What difference is it to the detenu whether his imprisonment is called preventive or punitive? * * * 29. Preventive detention is, by nature, repugnant to democratic ideas and an anathema to the Rule of law. No such law exists in the USA and in England (except during war time). Since, however, Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India permits preventive detention, we cannot hold it illegal but we must confine the power of preventive detention within very narrow limits, otherwise we will be taking away the great right to liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India which was won after long, arduous and h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such a measure being adopted and it is only a limited judicial review by the constitutional courts that can be urged by an aggrieved detenu wherefor too, in examining challenges to orders of preventive detention, the Courts would be loath to interfere with or substitute their own reasoning for the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority. Since the object of a preventive detention law is not punitive but preventive and precautionary, ordinarily it is best left to the discretion of the detaining authority." (emphasis supplied) [paragraph in bold and underline: emphasis by this Court and paragraph underlined: emphasis in the original judgement] 10. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner was arrested in the fourth FIR being FIR no. 253/2021 on 18th June, 2021. The Petitioner was arrested in this case after his release by way of suspension of sentence in case FIR No. 200/2012 on 31st July, 2020. Other admitted position is that the fact that the Petitioner stands convicted in FIR 200/2021, under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act for possession of commercial quantity of 275 grams of heroin. Similarly, in the fourth FI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect, held as under: "11. The contents of the detention order and its accompanying annexure clearly show that the detaining authority was aware and conscious of the fact that the detenu was already in custody in connection with the Bank dacoity at the time of making the detention order. The fact that the detenu's application for grant of bail in the dacoity case had been rejected on 22-8-1988 and he was remanded to custody for the offence of bank dacoity punishable under Section 397 IPC is also evident from the record. The detention order came to be made on 7-9-1988 on the above grounds in these circumstances. In the detention order the detaining authority recorded its satisfaction that the detenu's preventive detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order in which he would indulge if he was allowed to remain at large. The above quoted paras 18 and 19 of the Annexure to the detention order clearly disclose the factual position. However, it may be pointed out that the detention order read along with its annexure nowhere indicates that the detaining authority apprehended the likelihood of the deten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... particular case; preventive detention being necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order etc. ordinarily it is not needed when the detenu is already in custody; the detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order; but, even so, if the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied on cogent material that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can be validly made even in anticipation to operate on his release. This appears to us, to be the correct legal position. 23. Applying the above settled principle to the facts of the present case we have no doubt that the detention order, in the present case, must be quashed for this reason alone. The detention order read with its annexure indicates the detaining authority's awareness of the fact of detenu's jail custody at the time of the making of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ided the following conditions are satisfied :- (1) the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2) the detaining authority has reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before it that there is a real possibility of his being released on bail, and that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity; and (3) it is essential to detain him to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities. To the same effect are the decisions of the Supreme Court in Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1986) 4 S.C.C. 378; Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and Others, (1988) 1 S.C.C. 436; N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another, (1989) 4 S.C.C. 418; and Anand Prakash v. State of U.P. and Others, (1990) 1 S.C.C. 291. 8. Thus, even in a case where a person is in custody, if the facts and circumstances of the case so demand, detention order can be passed for his detention under the law of preventive detention provided there is relevant and creditable material to indicate that he is likely to be released on bail and is likely to repea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 he made a complaint against 3 Police Officials of Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch including SI Sunil Jain (Seizing Officer), of above case FIR No. 200/2012, PS Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch, Delhi, HC Om Prakash and Ct. Kheta Ram before the Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi against his false implication in the above FIR No. 200/2012, which was registered against the petitioner/detenue with a view to extract money from him on the pretext that he will be again implicated in a false case and the petitioner/detenue against their highhandedness also provided the telephonic conversation recorded by him on his mobile phone and on the basis of complaint and material provided by the petitioner/detenue a FIR No. 49/2014 was registered u/s 7 PC Act by PS- Anti Corruption Branch against the above police officials, which remained under investigations for a quite long time and during this period investigation changed hands and after his conviction In FIR No. 200/2012, on 12.02.2016 he was taken into custody as such he could not properly assist the investigating officer of Anticorruption Branch, Delhi and was not able to provide necessary documents/ Gazzettes to the investigating officer and as such in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Branch Delhi and brown sugar weighing 100 grams was recovered from him and thereby he was convicted and sentenced for 3 months and 15 days vide order dt 06.01.2011 passed by the Ld. Special judge, Karkardooma Courts. Thereafter the Petitioner was arrested in another case bearing FIR. No 200/12 u/s 21 NDPS Act, by the Narcotics Cell, PS Crime Branch Delhi whereby heroin weighing 275 grams was recovered and the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 years along with imposition of fine of Rs. 1,50.000 - vide order dc 12.02.2016 by the Ld. Special judge, NDPS, Tis Hazar Courts. 22. That the contents of ground D to I of the writ petitioner under reply are false, misleading and denied. It is submitted that Grounds of Detention along-with documents relied upon were served to the detenu on 07.09.2023. The detenu was also provided with a Hindi translation of documents which were originally in English Language under proper acknowledgement signed by the Petitioner himself. It is also submitted that no Hindi translation of documents was provided which were originally in Hindi. It is further submitted that all the documents i.e. Detention Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and this subjective satisfaction, according to the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner, was founded on a solitary incident of theft of aluminium wire alleged to have been committed by the petitioner on April 14, 1973. In respect of this incident of theft a criminal case was filed inter alia against the petitioner in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Asansol, but the criminal case was ultimately dropped as witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence for fear of danger to their life and the petitioner was discharged. It appeared clear on record that the history-sheet of the petitioner which was before the District Magistrate when he made the order of detention did not make any reference to the criminal case launched against the petitioner, much less to the fact that the prosecution had been dropped or the date when the petitioner was discharged from that case. In connection with this aspect this Court observed as follows: "We should have thought that the fact that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al leave. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, did not question before us the validity and legality of the finding of the High Court insofar as it relates to the non-supply of the relevant and vital materials, that is, the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so far as Ground 1 of the order of detention is concerned, to the detenus and also of the non-placement of the application made by the co-accused before the Judicial Magistrate to the effect that the detenus were falsely implicated in the said case as Vijay Pratap Singh was fired at by some unknown assailants and this fact was also mentioned in the bail application made by the detenus before the court and the police report submitted thereon. The only challenge made on behalf of the appellant is to the finding of the High Court to the effect that the incidents referred to in Grounds 1 and 2 created only law and order problem and it did not affect public order. In other words, the even tempo of the life of the community has not at all been affected by the said incident. It is relevant to mention in this connection that the names of the detenus were not mentioned in th....