2000 JTR(SC) 1742
2000 4 AICLR 749 ; 2000 AIR(SC) 3675 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 4203 ; 2001 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 382 ; 2001 42 AllCriC 262 ; 2001 42 AllLR 617 ; 2001 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 745 ; 2001 1 CHN(SC) 16 ; 2001 CriLR 201 ; 2000 4 Crimes(SC) 270 ; 2001 CrLJ 474 ; 2001 1 EastCrC(SC) 104 ; 2001 2 JLJ 190 ; 2000 Supp3 JT 178 ; 2001 2 MWN(Cri) 67 ; 2001 2 OLR 1 ; 2001 1 RCR(Cri) 81 ; 2000 7 Scale 597 ; 2001 1 SCC 341 ; 2001 SCC(Cri) 147 ; 2000 SCR 450 ; 2000 8 SLT 410 ; 2001 1 UJ 555 ; 2001 KHC 1349 ; 2000 7 Supreme 584
2000(7) Supreme 584
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
U.C. Banerjee and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Amritlal & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Union Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 838-841 of 1999
Decided on 7-11-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Pallav Shishosdia and Abhijat P. Medh, Advocates
For the Respondents : A.S. Rawat Advocate for D.S. Mehra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
When a detenue has been arrested already and in custody under NDPS Act, mere likelihood of his moving application cannot be ground to pass detention order under Section 3(1) of PITNDPS Act, for likelihood of moving an application for bail cannot be equated with likelihood to be released .
Act
Referred
:NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.18, S.8
PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.3(1)
(A) The impugned order of detention was passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, read in conjunction with Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, following the seizure of 132 kgs. of opium during a raid. The validity of this detention order was challenged on the grounds of illegality, mechanical reasoning without application of mind, and punitive character, invoking the framework of judicial review as elucidated in prior precedents.
(B) The Court emphasized that detention under the statute is permissible only when the detaining authority is satisfied, based on cogent material, that the detenu is likely to move an application for bail and, if granted, is likely to indulge in illicit trafficking again. The mere likelihood of a bail application being moved is insufficient; there must be a reasoned satisfaction grounded in material on record, and the order must not be mechanical. The doctrine of reasoned decision-making and non-application of mind renders an order invalid if the required threshold is not met.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were arrested during a raid leading to the seizure of 132 kgs. of opium. They were denied bail by the Addl. District Judge and subsequently detained under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, with the detention order being confirmed later. The High Court dismissed their challenge, relying on the reasoning of the detenu being in custody and the provision of reasons, without appreciating the insufficiency of the stated ground.
Findings of Court:
The High Court failed to appreciate that the detaining authoritys reasoning was predicated on the likelihood of a bail application rather than the likelihood of release on bail, which does not satisfy the mandate of Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. The order was thus not supported by cogent material and suffered from an erroneous application of mind.
Issues:
Whether the detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act was valid when the detaining authoritys reasoning was based on the likelihood of a bail application being moved, rather than the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail, and whether such an order suffers from illegality on the ground of non-application of mind.
Ratio Decidendi:
An order of detention under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act must be based on cogent material demonstrating the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail and indulging in illicit trafficking if set at liberty. A mere satisfaction that the detenu is likely to move an application for bail is insufficient, and an order failing to record such satisfaction is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Result:
The order of detention is quashed and the appeals are allowed.
(A) The impugned order of detention was passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, read in conjunction with Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, following the seizure of 132 kgs. of opium during a raid. The validity of this detention order was challenged on the grounds of illegality, mechanical reasoning without application of mind, and punitive character, invoking the framework of judicial review as elucidated in prior precedents.
(B) The Court emphasized that detention under the statute is permissible only when the detaining authority is satisfied, based on cogent material, that the detenu is likely to move an application for bail and, if granted, is likely to indulge in illicit trafficking again. The mere likelihood of a bail application being moved is insufficient; there must be a reasoned satisfaction grounded in material on record, and the order must not be mechanical. The doctrine of reasoned decision-making and non-application of mind renders an order invalid if the required threshold is not met.
Facts of the case:
The appellants were arrested during a raid leading to the seizure of 132 kgs. of opium. They were denied bail by the Addl. District Judge and subsequently detained under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, with the detention order being confirmed later. The High Court dismissed their challenge, relying on the reasoning of the detenu being in custody and the provision of reasons, without appreciating the insufficiency of the stated ground.
Findings of Court:
The High Court failed to appreciate that the detaining authoritys reasoning was predicated on the likelihood of a bail application rather than the likelihood of release on bail, which does not satisfy the mandate of Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. The order was thus not supported by cogent material and suffered from an erroneous application of mind.
Issues:
Whether the detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act was valid when the detaining authoritys reasoning was based on the likelihood of a bail application being moved, rather than the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail, and whether such an order suffers from illegality on the ground of non-application of mind.
Ratio Decidendi:
An order of detention under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act must be based on cogent material demonstrating the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail and indulging in illicit trafficking if set at liberty. A mere satisfaction that the detenu is likely to move an application for bail is insufficient, and an order failing to record such satisfaction is illegal and liable to be quashed.
Result:
The order of detention is quashed and the appeals are allowed.
ORDER
In these appeals the validity of the order of detention passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India stands challenged.
2. The contextual facts depict that the appellants were arrested pursuant to the raid conducted by the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics leading to the seizure of 132 kgs. of opium and crime No. 22/96 was registered against them under Sections 8/18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act ). The appellants prayed for being released on bail, but the Addl. District Judge, Neemuch, rejected the application. Subsequently however they were detained under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the PITNDPS Act ) by order dated 5.6.1977. The record depicts that the grounds of detention were communicated to the appellants within the stipulated time and subsequently by order dated 17.8.1997 their detention has been confirmed. The appellants moved the High Court on the ground that it was illegal and invalid as the detaining authority passed the order mechanically and without application of mind and that facts do not justify their detention. In any event the detention was further challenged on the ground of the same being punitive in nature. The Division Bench of the High Court however dismissed the petitions on the ground that the detaining authority had shown awareness of the petitioners being in the custody and had also communicated the compelling reasons by hinting at the likelihood of their enlarging on bail . The Division Bench of the High Court while dealing with the matter did take into consideration the factum of the two other persons connected with the occurrence being released on bail and, as such, the detaining authority was not oblivious of the petitioners custody and had also provided compelling reasons under Section 3(1) of the Act.
3. Learned advocate appearing in support of the appeals during the course of hearing informed this Court that while it is true that by reason of efflux of time the period of detention has otherwise expired but continued to press the appeal with some emphasis by reason of the consequences as provided in the statute to wit: the forfeiture of the property of the detenue and it is in this context strong reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Rivadeneyta Ricardo Agustin v. Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.1. This Court while dealing with the matter and relying upon the decision of this Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India2 came to the conclusion that the order of detention cannot but be quashed. In Kamarunnissa s case (supra) this Court was pleased to observe thus:
"The decisions of this Court to which our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners lay down in no uncertain terms that detention orders can validly be passed against detenus who are in jail, provided the officer passing the order is alive to the fact of the detenus being in custody and there is material on record to justify his conclusion that they would indulge in similar activity is set at liberty."
4. In Agustin s decision (supra) this Court also placed strong reliance on an earlier but oft-cited decision of this Court in Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad3 wherein it was held that if a person is in custody and there is no imminent possibility of his being released therefrom, the power of detention should not ordinarily be exercised. This Court held that there must be cogent materials before the officer passing the detention order that the detenu is likely to be released on bail. The inference must be drawn from the available material on record and must not be the ipsi dixit of the officer passing the order of detention. It is in this perspective as above, that the recording of the concerned officer in the matter under reference ought to be noticed and the same reads as below :
"Even though prosecution proceedings under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been initiated against Shri Amritlal I am satisfied that there is compelling necessity in view of the likelihood of his moving an application for bail and in the event of his being granted bail, the likelihood of his indulging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs as is evident from the trend of his activities, to detain him under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988."
5. It is this reasoning which the learned advocate contended that the High Court should have held to be completely erroneous in the matter of being the basis of an order of detention.
6. The requirement as noticed above in Binod Singh s case (supra) that there is likelihood of the petitioners being released on bail that however is not available in the reasonings as provided by the concerned officer. The reasoning available is the likelihood of his moving an application for bail which is different from likelihood to be released on bail . This reasoning, in our view, is not sufficient compliance with the requirements as laid down.
7. The emphasis however, in BinodSingh s case (supra) that before passing the detention order the concerned authority must satisfy himself of the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and that satisfaction ought to be reached on cogent material. Available cogent material is the likelihood of having a bail application moved in the matter but not obtaining a bail order.
8. On the wake of the aforesaid, we do not feel inclined to record our concurrence with the order of detention passed in the matter. As such the same is quashed. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(C.R.) Order accordingly.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Amritlal & Ors. v. Union Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors., 2000(7) Supreme 584
00035