Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Invoking the jurisdiction of one of such statutes i.e., Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, the respondent-State in exercise of the powers vesting in it under Section 3(1) of the said Act, directed the detention of the petitioners herein purportedly with a view to prevent them from engaging in manufacture, possession and concealment of psychotropic substances. All the petitioners have been directed to be kept in custody in the Central Prison, Bangalore. According to the grounds of detention served upon the petitioners, it transpires that they had established a factory where they were manufacturing methaqualone tablets popularly known as mandrax tablets which are admittedly psychotropic substance prohibited under the NDPS Act. It is alleged that the mandrax tablets were being manufactured by the petitioners at a premises known as New Pathan Building at Kakati Village, Belgaum. A search was conducted in the aforesaid premises on 7-11-1996 and 8-11-1996. During the search it was found that the premises had been converted into a factory where the mandrax tablets were being manufactured by installing a tabletting machine, an oven, a granulator, etc. The prohibited drug was seized under a mahazar duly drawn in the presence of the witnesses. The petitioners are stated to have admitted their role in the manufacture of the aforesaid prohibited drug. It was also admitted that the petitioners have been indulging in sale of heroin and brown sugar smuggled into India through Afghan nationals. A case under the NDPS Act is stated to have been registered against one of the petitioners viz., Taj Mohammed Khan. He was arrested in that case and was facing trial in the Sessions Court at Mumbai in Spl. C. No. 244 of 1992. He was also alleged to have earlier been arrested in connection with the recovery of brown sugar from the possession of an African national. He is alleged to be involved in another case of being in possession of illegally acquired weapons. He was stated to have purchased properties in Belgaum by using the proceeds of illicit narcotic trafficking.

3. In his statement voluntarily made on 8-11-1996 and recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the said Sri Taj Mohammed Khan is reported to have stated that he had developed contacts with some Afghan nationals, who after political unrest in Afghanistan and military action in USSR got stranded in Pakistan and thereafter started trading in brown sugar which they used to smuggle by concealing the same in the package brought through airports. The said detenu used to sell the smuggled brown sugar to Afghan nationals in Colaba area of Mumbai. While indulging in the sale of brown sugar he came into contact with one Sri David Jan an African national. While dealing with the said Sri David Jan, the alleged detenu came in contact with Sri Sabha Mohammed Kbadir, Sri Ahmed Khadir, and Ahmed, who are stated to be the co-accused with him in the heroin case pending in the Sessions Court at Bombay. He is also admitted to have voluntarily confessed of having been involved in the smuggling of 200 gold bars. He admitted to have opened a firm, carrying out ticketing, where Aslam was his partner. They carried on this business under the name of Taj Travel, Wasimal Building, Opp. Railway Hotel, Grant Road, Mumbai. In the course of this business one Sri Adil came in contact with him and remained with him till his arrest in relation to the case regarding the manufacture of mandrax tablets. He was alleged to have admitted that he was picked up by the Crime Branch Unit No. 9, Andheri, Mumbai, for possessing illegal weapons. Two revolvers and two pistols of .32 bore were recovered and seized from him. The said weapons were alleged to have been given to him by one Khuda Baksh. Case No. CR 260 of 1993 was admitted to have been registered against him. Khuda Baksh told him that there was a person by name Azeez Merchant at Mahim, Mumbai, who had a project for rearing canaf fibre trees with buy back agreement. In a meeting Azeez Merchant introduced the said detenu to one Mukesh Patel who normally resided in U.S.A. and was involved in the selling of project along with technical know how on commission basis. The detenue is admitted to have invested Rs. 15 lakhs in the project which did not take off and he in the company of one Sri Swain visited U.S.A. He was informed by one David Jan that he could do the business if he could get him 'Buttons'. The Button was a code word used in the narcotic trade for mandrax tablets. He was informed that mandrax tablets were generally manufactured at Mandasaur in Madhya Pradesh. He along with Adil went to Mandasaur where he got in touch with one Raju to whom he paid Rs. 10,000/- for starting the project of manufacture of the mandrax tablets. On his instructions the detenu along with Adil visited Indore where they stayed in the Ambassador Hotel. Raju then introduced one Bablu. The detenu thereafter spoke to David Jan who told him that the mandrax tablets when manufactured should have the flower marking on the one side and swastik mark on the other and the colour should be off white. Rupees thirteen thousand was given to Bablu for getting the dyes and punches for flower and swastik marks. He was also introduced to one Shukla who informed the detenue that he was required to have a rotary type tablet making machine for manufacturing methaqualone tablets. A sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-was paid to Shukla for the said machine. Shukla despatched tablet making machine from Ahmedabad to Kakati, by tempo. The said machine was purchased in the name of some company by Shukla. David Jan made a hawala payment of Rs. 25 lakhs to the detenu through a person who was looking like a Marwadi. On his asking Shukla sent the binding materials to the detenu through Shivani transport. As despite purchase of machinery the detenu did not know the art of manufacturing, he contacted one person named Indrajeet Singh who agreed to work for him on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as his fee. The detenue and one Adil were taught the process of manufacturing of methaqualone powder. It is further alleged in the grounds of detention that:

12. In the counter-affidavits filed by Sri N.A. Muthanna, Additional Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary, Home and Transport Department, Government of Karnataka, it is submitted that the petitioners were involved in the manufacture of mandrax tablets. They admitted their role in the manufacture of prohibited goods vide voluntary statements made. The voluntary statements made by the petitioners were properly perused and considered before directing their detention. Apart from the voluntary statements, various other documents and records, viz., seizure mahazars drawn before the independent witnesses, test report of the Chemical Examiner, etc., had been relied upon to arrive at a decision of detaining the petitioners under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act- The action for trial of the petitioners under the said Act was independent of the action under the NDPS Act, 1985. There has not been any delay muchless inordinate delay in passing the detention orders against the petitioners as alleged. Considering the fact that the records scrutinised and relied upon were voluminous which were translated! into Hindi, there was no undue delay in passing the detention orders. The detention orders have been passed after scrutiny of documents relied upon and in judicious exercise of powers of detention. The detention orders are claimed to be perfectly in order and in harmony with the letter and spirit of the provisions of the Act. The Detaining Authority was satisfied that the petitioners were found engaged in the production and manufacture of prohibited drugs. The trial of the detenues and their preventive detention were independent of each other. The inferences drawn and the conclusions arrived at are based upon scrutiny of documents. The preventive detention of the petitioners was based on the satisfaction of the respondent-Authority of their apprehended likely indulgence in illicit trafficking. The Detaining Authority was aware of the arrest of the detenues at the time of passing of the detention orders which were justified, besides other things, of their being finally released on bail. The detention is not for an indefinite period but only for the period as specified under the Act. The judicial custody of the detenues could be terminated at any time which necessitated the passing of the detention orders with the object of preventing them from indulging in the nefarious activities and dealing in narcotic drugs. There has not been any delay. The grounds of detention were served upon the petitioners one day immediately after their detention in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act and not beyond five days in any case. The condition precedent in recording the voluntary statements were followed before actual recording the statements of the petitioners. The statements made by the petitioners were typed out as rendered by them at their request as they had expressed to be not fluent in writing. The petitioners have appended endorsements to that effect in their own hands. The allegation that the procedure prescribed for recording voluntary statement was not followed has vehemently been denied. The grounds of detention are claimed to be sufficient for the purpose of directing preventive detention of the petitioners. The orders of detention are stated to have not been passed in a mechanical manner, or without satisfaction as contemplated under the Act. It is submitted that none of the petitioners excepting Rajan Worlikar had retracted the statements made by them. The retraction of the statements of Rajan Worlikar was considered by the Detaining Authority at the time of the passing of the detention' order. The order of detention is stated to have been passed on solid and substantial grounds which could not be dubbed to be devoid of merits. No fundamental or legal right of the detenue is stated to have been violated. The petitions filed are stated to be mis- conceived and liable to be rejected.

23. In Rajesh R. Khushlani v Mahendraprasad (Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India) and Others, the delay of 6 1/2 months was found to have been satisfactorily explained on the ground of the fact that voluminous documents seized in the case had to be perused by the Detaining Authority before passing the detention orders.

24. In the instant case the record reveals that the detenues were arrested in the first week of November, 1996. The samples of the seized articles were sent to chemical analysis immediately thereafter. The report of the chemical analysis received on 24-12-1996 confirmed the presence of methaqualone in the seized articles. The D.R.I. of Mumbai sent the details of the anecdote of Taj Mohammed Khan and his involvement in the number of cases. The D.R.I. Officers of Bangalore are stated to have requested the State Government to constitute a Screening Committee for the purposes of deciding the future course of action regarding the petitioners. The Screening Committee was constituted by the State Government on 28-1-1997. A proposal was sent to the Screening Committee for consideration of detention of the detenues on 3-2-1997. Meanwhile the Sessions Judge, Belgaum granted bail to all the detenues except Taj Mohammed Khan. The Screening Committee is stated to have accepted the proposal of D.R.I. for passing the detention orders on 14-2-1997. Papers were sent to the first respondent, who sought furnishing of the translated version of all the documents in the language known to all the detenues. The translated version of the documents came to be furnished to the Detaining Authority by the end of March 1997. The Detaining Authority thereafter passed the impugned orders on 16-4-1997. The fact that the record seized was voluminous is not disputed. The paper book supplied to us also comprises of about 1,000 pages. The fact that the documents seized were not in the language known to the detenues is also not disputed. Getting the record translated spread over almost 1,000 pages necessarily required time. The Detaining Authority could not pass the detention order in the absence of the relevant record. If such an order was passed, the same could have been rightly challenged on the ground of non-application of mind and subjective satisfaction in the absence of the relevant record. We are satisfied that the delay in the instant case is neither intentional nor uncalled for. Such a delay, cannot be made a basis for setting aside the detention of the petitioners who are alleged to be involved in the heinous crime of manufacturing of mandrax tablets intended to be sold for profits resulting in the health hazards for the common man. The detenues cannot be conferred any benevolence under the cloak of technicalities. The ground of delay, as argued before us, is apparently concocted and imaginery and not accepted by us for the purposes of setting the detenues at liberty.