Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Acting on the basis of the specific intelligence, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short DIR), Bombay intercepted two vehicles on 26th February, 1995 - a truck bearing registration No. MH-01-H-4828 and a tempo bearing registration No. MMK-3560 at Nita Road Lines Compound, Opp : Garba Devi Mandir, Narayan Gajanan Acharya Marg, Govandi, Bombay 400 088. Both the vehicles were parked back to back. The doors of both the vehicles were open and on boarding the said vehicles the officers of DIR alongwith the panchas found four persons who disclosed their names as (i) Abdulla Ahmed Arancada, the detenu, (ii) Palwinder Singh Kartar Singh, (iii) K.C. Anilkumar and (iv) Rajendra Singh Pritam Singh Mistry. The first two persons were in the truck whereas the next two persons were in the tempo. The officers also found that the said vehicles were containing 62 HDPE sacks (High Density Polyura Ethyene sacks) and 30 bags of Ambuja Cement. From the said 62 HDPE sacks, the officers recovered 2480 polythene bags in all containing 2083.200 kgs. of Mandrax tablets valued in the international market at Rs. 2,08,32,000/-. They were seized under the panchanama dated 26th February, 1995. Statements of all the four persons were recorded. Statement of the detenu was recorded under the panchanama made on 27th February, 1995 wherein he stated that he was doing business of travel agency in the name of M/s. Fujri Travels. The detenue admitted to have met Anilkumar Pillai in December 1994 in connection with the export of Mandrax Tablets to South African countries. He agreed to work with Anil Kumar for a handsome monetary consideration for smuggling the Mandrax tablets. The detenu agreed that when he had met Anilkumar on 23rd February, 1995 the later had asked him to arrange for a godown for storing 2 tonnes of Mandrax tablets and a tempo for transporting the same. It was decided that the detenue would bring the tempo on 25th February, 1995 near R.K. Studio where Anil Kumar would meet him to give delivery of the Mandrax Tablets. It appears that pursuant to this arrangement the detenu reached Chembur, though little late, on 26th February, 1995, in the morning, where Anil Kumar was waiting for him. The detenue escorted the tempo where the truck was parked and when the Mandrax tablets were being transferred from the truck to the tempo, all the four persons were apprehended by the D.I.R. Officers. There is no dispute before us that Mandrax tablets found with the detenue contained methaqualone which is a psychotropic substance.

"We must remember that observance of written law about the procedural safeguards for the protection of the individual is normally the high duty of public official but in all circumstances not the highest. The law of self-preservation and protection of the country and national security may claim in certain circumstances higher priority".

20. In the case before us what was evident from the record before the detaining authority is that the detenu was involved in the racket of export of Mandrax tablets. He was known by as many as six different names. He was caught red-handed while indulging in the act of transfer of Mandrax tablets from one vehicle to another. The ground of detention record the fact, after setting out the entire history of his previous conduct, that the detenu was involved with a gang of trafficers in Mandrax tablets to South African countries and that in the event of his being released on bail, he would indulge in similar prejudicial activities. In the affidavit of Shri C.D. Singh made on 13th September, 1995, it is categorically stated in para 5 as under:---

30. The third contention is that the consideration of the fact of involvement of the detenu in a murder case in Kerala is wholly irrelevant and an extraneous circumstance for recording the satisfaction for passing the order of detention under section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act and hence, the order of detention is bad in law. A perusal of the record would show that in the grounds of detention the first 14 paragraphs deal with prejudicial activities of the detenu engaging himself in the illicit traffic of psychotropic substances for preventing which the order of detention has been issued under section 3(1) of the said Act. The background of the detenu and the incident of 26th February, 1995 in connection with illegal traffic of a huge quantity of Mandrax tablets has been elaborated by the detaining authority from para 1 till para 14 of the Grounds of Detention. There is not a whisper in these 14 paragraphs that the detenu was also involved in a murder case in Kerala. After setting out the elaborate facts of the detenu being engaged in illicit traffic of psychotropic substances viz. the export of Mandrax tablets to South African Countries, the detaining authority has in the opening sentence of para 15 recorded the following subjective satisfaction :

"From all the above discussion and material placed before me, it is clear that you are involved with a gang of drug traffickers in Mandrax tablets to South African Countries".

It is this subjective satisfaction, alongwith other circumstances viz. likelihood of getting bail and indulging in similar prejudicial activities, in future which is the basis of the issuance of the order of detention. The basic facts considered for recording this subjective satisfaction elaborately deal with the past conduct and antecedent of the detenu, on the basis of which an inference can be drawn in presenti about the future course of conduct in which he was likely to indulge. It is only incidentally in para 15 that a reference is made to the fact that the detenu was absconding after having obtained bail in the murder case in Kerala. It is only in connection with his having jumped bail that for giving details of the said fact, a reference is made to the murder case in Kerala. In the affidavit made by Shri C.D. Singh on 13th September, 1995 he has categorically stated in para 14 that while recording his satisfaction there is only a reference to the background of the detenu viz. his involvement in the murder case. However, that does not constitute the basic fact on which the order of detention was issued. The order of detention has been issued on the basis of the details of the conduct of the detenu and the other attendant circumstances which give rise to a reasonable apprehension that if the detenu is released on bail, he will indulge in similar prejudicial activities in future.