http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: SMT. AZRA FATIMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/07/1990

BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1763            1990 SCR  (3) 268  1990 SCC  (1)  76        JT 1990 (3)   156  1990 SCALE  (2)8

ACT:     Prevention  of  Illicit Traffic in  Narcotic  Drugs  and Psychotropic  Substances Act,  1988: Section 3(1), 3(3)  and 10(1)--Detention-Communication of grounds--Principle of five days  and fifteen days-Inapplicable in respect  of  declara- tion.

HEADNOTE:     The  petitioner filed a writ petition in the High  Court challenging  the  detention of her husband,  Syed  Ali  Raza Shafiq  Mohammed,  under section 3(1) of the  Prevention  of Illicit  Traffic  in Narcotic Drugs  and  Psychotropic  Sub- stances Act, 1988. The detenu was then already in jail as he was involved in a case under the Act, and his bail  applica- tion in that case had been rejected. 3"he Division Bench  of the High Court dismissed the writ petition.     Before  this Court in the Special Leave Petition it  was inter-alia  contended on behalf of the detenu that: (i)  the mere  possibility  of the detenu’s release on bail  was  not enough for preventive detention unless there was material to justify the apprehension that his detention would be  neces- sary in order to prevent him from engaging in illicit  traf- ficking  in narcotic drugs and psychotropic  substances,  in case  of his release on bail; (ii) the detention  orders  of Rai  Chand  Shah  and Jai Lal Vora, who  were  arrested  and detained  in the same raid, having been struck down  by  the High Court on the ground that the medical report in  respect of the injuries sustained by Rai Chand Shah was placed in  a truncated form before the detaining authority, the detention order of the detenu should also be set aside as it  suffered from the same vice; (iii) though the declaration was  issued under  Sec. 10(1) of the Act on 20.1.1989 but the  same  was served on the detenu on 10.2.1989 after an unexplained delay of  21 days; and (iv) there was in an inordinate  and  unex- plained delay in considering the representations made by the detenu.     On  the  other hand, it was contended on behalf  of  the respondents  that:  (i)  it would depend on  the  facts  and circumstances of each case whether a detention order was  to be  passed  or not in case of a person who  was  already  in custody;  (ii) the detaining authority could take  into  ac-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

count the nature of the antecedent activities of the  detenu in order to 269 arrive  at the conclusion that it was likely that after  his release from custody he would indulge in criminal activities and  it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent  him from  engaging in such activities; and (iii) in the  present case there was complete awareness in the mind of the detain- ing authority that if he was released on bail he was  likely to indulge in the criminal activities. Dismissing the special leave petition, this Court,     HELD:  (1)  The  material placed  before  the  detaining authority  and the facts mentioned in the grounds of  deten- tion  clearly  go to show that the detaining  authority  was fully  aware that the bail application filed by  the  detenu had  been  rejected. The detaining authority was  also  con- scious  of  the  fact that the two other  detenus  who  were arrested  and  detained in the same raid  had  already  been released on bail. [277B-C]     (2) The antecedents of the detenu which were clear  from his own statement went to show that he was initiated in drug trafficking in 1984 and employed as a delivery hay on  Rs.30 per  day and within a short span of four years  had  himself started  buying and selling Narcotic Drugs and amassed  huge movable  and immovable properties in Bombay. In the  present raid   itself   hereoin  and  Mandrax  tablets   worth   Rs. 1,13,42,000 were seized from the ownership and possession of the detenu. [277C-D]      (3) The detaining authority after taking into consider- ation the material placed before him, arrived at the conclu- sion that the detenu being in judicial custody may under the normal law of the land he granted bail and be in a  position to continue to pursue his nefarious activities- [277E]      (4)  The  detaining authority  in  these  circumstances considered  it  necessary to invoke the  law  of  preventive detention under the Act to prevent the detenu from indulging in prejudicial activities in future. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of detention was illegal on the  ground that it was passed while the detenu was  already in custody- [277F]      (5) The facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken  into consideration in the context of considering  the order of detention in the case of a detenu who is already in jail. [273G] N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu, JT (1989) 3 SCR 270 478;  Dharmendra  Sugan  Chand Chelwat v.  Union  of  India, [1990] 1 SCC 746; Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal  Union of India, JT (1990)  2 SCC 62; Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P.,  JT (1988)  1  SC 88 and Ramesh Yadav  v.  District  Magistrate, Etah, [1985] 4 SCC 232, referred to.     (6)  A perusal of the orders of the High Court  quashing the  detention  orders of Rai Chand Shah and  Jai  Lal  Vora shows  that  the basis for the detention orders  were  their confessional  statements. The High Court in this regard  had observed  that  the  confessional  statement  of  Rai  Chand Shah--which  also  formed  integral and vital  part  of  the grounds  of  detention  of Jai Lal  Vora--being  product  of threats and injuries sustained by him and further his  medi- cal  report having been placed in truncated form before  the detaining authority, their detention became invalid. But, so far  as  the case of the present detenu  is  concerned,  his detention was based on entirely distinct and separate  mate- rials  including his own confessional statements. The  basis of  the  grounds of detention of the present detenu  is  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

rounded on the truncated form of medical report of  injuries sustained by Rai Chand Shah. Thus the present detenu  cannot take  advantage of any orders passed by the High  Court  de- claring detention orders of Rai Chand Shah and Jai Lal  Vora as illegal. [278A-E]     (7) So far as the provision of Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the  Act  is  concerned, it clearly provides  that  for  the purposes  of clause (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution,  the communication to a person detained in pursuance of a  deten- tion  order of the grounds on which the order has been  made shah  be  made as soon as may he after  the  detention,  but ordinarily  not  later than five days,  and  in  exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later  than fifteen days, from the date of  detention.  This provision thus relates to the communication 01’ the  grounds of detention. [279B-C]     (8)  The  principle  of five days and  fifteen  days  as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act relating to  communication of grounds of detention cannot be  applied in  respect  of declaration issued under Sec. 10(1)  of  the Act. [280F]     (9)  There is no force in the contention that there  was an  inordinate  delay  in  considering  the  representations submitted  by the detenu. The High Court has given  adequate and  detailed  reasons in holding that the  delay  has  been explained by the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. [281A-B] 271

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave  Petition (Criminal) No. 2531 of 1989.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 29.9.  1989  of  the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 87 of 1989. U.R. Lalit and Mukul Mudgal for the Petitioner.     Ashok H. Desai, Solicitor General, Ashok Srivastava  and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KASLIWAL,  J-  This special leave Petition  is  directed against  the  Judgment of the Bombay High Court  dated  29th September, 1989 dismissing Criminal Writ Petition No. 87  of 1989.     Syed  Ali Raza Shafiq Mohammed was detained by an  order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention  of Illicit  Traffic  in Narcotic Drugs  and  Psychotropic  Sub- stances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 19.12.88  by the Secretary (II) to the Government  of  Maha- rashtra,  Home  Department.  The  detention  order  and  the grounds of detention were given to the detenu on 20th Decem- ber,  1988. It may be mentioned that on 19.12.88 the  detenu was already in jail as his bail application had been reject- ed. The wife of the detenu filed a writ petition before  the Bombay  High Court challenging the detention of her  husband Syed  Ali  Raza Shafiq Mohammed. The Division Bench  of  the High  Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated  29th September,  1989. The wife of the detenu has now  filed  the present  Special Leave Petition aggrieved against the  Judg- ment  of  the  Bombay High Court. Learned  counsel  for  the petitioner raised the following submissions before us:     (1) There were no prospects of the detenu being enlarged on bail as he was involved in a case under the Act where the offence  was punishable with minimum sentence of ten  years. The  bail  application  filed on behalf of  the  detenu  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

rejected  by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the detenu  had not  filed any application for bail either in  the  Sessions Court or in the High Court.     (2) That detention orders of Rai Chand Shah and Jai  Lal Vora had already been struck down by the High Court on the 272 ground  that  the medical report in respect  of  the  injury sustained  by Rai Chand Shah was placed in a truncated  form before  the detaining authority. The detention order of  the present  detenu also suffers from the same vice and as  such his order of detention should also be set aside.    (3)  That a declaration was issued under Sec. 10  (1)  of the  Act on 20th January, 1989 and the said declaration  was served on the detenu after an unexplained delay of 21 days.    (4)  The  detenu submitted a  representation  on  31.1.89 which was jointly addressed to the Government of Maharashtra and  the Government of India and the Hon’ble Advisory  Board for revocation of the impugned order of detention. The State Government  rejected the representation by its  reply  dated 21.2.89  and  the  Central Government  by  its  reply  dated 3.3.89.  Thus there was an inordinate and unexplained  delay in  considering the said representations of the  detenu  and this  violated the right of the detenu under Art.  22(5)  of the Constitution of India. The order of detention is illegal on this count also.     We shall deal with the above contentions seriatem.  With regard  to  the  first contention it was  submitted  by  the learned  counsel that the detenu was already in custody  and his bail application had also been rejected and there was no likelihood  of the detenu being released on bail in  respect of  the  alleged  offence under the Act  where  the  minimum sentence  of  imprisonment was ten years. It  was  submitted that  the  mere possibility of his release on bail  was  not enough for preventive detention unless there was material to justify the apprehension that the detention would be  neces- sary in order to prevent him from engaging in illicit  traf- fic  in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, in  case of  his  release on bail. A mere possibility of  release  on bail  and a bald statement that the detenu would repeat  his criminal activities was alone not sufficient to sustain  the order  of detention. It was further contended that  the  de- taining  authority did not apply its mind to this aspect  of the  matter, that the detenu was already in custody and  his bail application having been rejected there was no possibil- ity of his being released on bail in a serious offence under the  Act.  Reliance in support of the above  contention  was placed on recent decisions of this Court in N. Meera Rani v. Government  of  Tamil Nadu & Anr., JT 1989 (3)  SC  478  and Dharmendra  Sugan Chand Chelwat. v. Union of India  &  Ors., [1990] 1 SCC 746. 273     On  the other hand Learned,Solicitor  General  contended that it would depend on the facts and circumstances of  each case  whether  a detention order is to be passed or  not  in case  of  a person who was already in custody. An  order  of detention can be validly passed against a person in  custody where  the  detaining authority was already  aware  of  such facts  and it is satisfied that the detenu is likely  to  be released  from  custody in the near  future.  The  detaining authority can take into account the nature of the antecedent activities  of the detenu in order to arrive to the  conclu- sion that it is likely mat after his release from custody he ’would  indulge in criminal activities and it was  necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in  such activities in the present case there was complete  awareness

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

in  the  mind of the detaining authority  about  the  detenu being  in custody and that if he is released on bail  he  is likely to indulge in the criminal activities. The  detaining authority was not only aware that the detenu was in jail but also  noted the circumstances on the basis of which  he  was satisfied that the detenu was likely to come out on bail and continue  to engage himself in the criminal  activities.  It was submitted that the High Court has considered this aspect of the case and has given detailed reasons for upholding the order  of detention and there is no ground or  justification for interfering in the order of the High Court. Reliance  in support of the above contention was placed on San jeer Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India & Ors., JT [1990] 2 SC 62.     We have given our thoughtful consideration to the  argu- ments  advanced  by Learned counsel for the parties  on  the above point. The latest decision of this Court on the  above point  is Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India  &  Ors., (supra) decided on 4th April, 1990 in which all the  earlier cases  decided by this Court have been considered  including the-cases of N. Meera Rani v. Dharmendra Sugan Chand Chelwat (supra)  on  which reliance has been placed by  the  Learned counsel for the petitioner. It was observed in Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal’s  case that no decision of this court has gone  to the extent of holding that no order of detention can validly be  passed  against a person in custody  under  any  circum- stances. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of each case have  to be taken into consideration in the context of  con- sidering the order of detention in the case of a detenu  who is already in jail. The counsel for the detenu in the  above case  strongly  relied on Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v.  State  of U.P. & Ors., JT [1988] 1 SC 88 and Ramesh Yadav v.  District Magistrate, Etah & Ors., [1985] 4 SCC 232 and contended that the  bail  application could be opposed if moved or  if  en- larged  the same can be questioned in a higher court and  on that ground the detention order should be held to be 274 invalid. The Court negatived the above contention by observ- ing  that  in N. Meera Rani’s case a Bench of  three  Judges noted the above observations in Smt. Shashi Aggarwal’s  case and Ramesh Yadav’s case and it was said that they were  made on  the facts of those particular cases. The  Court  further held  in the above case that on the material relied upon  by the detaining authority it could not be said that there  was no  awareness in the mind of the detaining  authority  about the  detenu being in custody and that if he is  released  on bail he is likely to indulge in the prejudicial activities.     If we examine the facts of the case before us as  stated in  the grounds of detention it would be clear that  on  the basis  of  specific information officers  of  the  Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay searched room No. G-2, Purab  Paschim Apartments, Gilbert Hill Road, Munshi Nagar, Andheri (West), Bombay-58 and recovered 56 Kgs. 650 gms. of Heroin (33  Kgs. 150 gms. white and 23 kgs. 500 gms. brown) and 4000  Mandrax Tablets (Methaeualone) totally valued at Rs. 1, 13,42000  on 21.10.88.     One Mr. Syed Asgar Ali was found in the room. During the course of the search another person named Abdul Sattar Abdul Samad  came on Motorcycle No. BLC 7768 Make Hero  Honda  and entered into the premises. Thereafter, two more persons came into  the premises who gave their names as Ali  Raza  Shafiq Mohamed  (detenu in the present case) and Thakur Singh.  The Officers  also searched and seized a Bajaj Scooter MAQ  169, the Motorcycle No. BLC 7768 and Fiat Car No. MMH 4348  which were  parked in the compound of the said society.  According to  the present detenu the said three vehicles belonging  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

him were used for transportation of Narcotic Drugs.     Telephone  No. 6288769 was found installed in the  prem- ises.  It  was subscribed by one Shirish Parikh K.  18  Azad Nagar  Society,  Juhu  Scheme, Road No.  7,  Bombay-56.  The detenu  disclosed  that he was living in Flat  No.  15,  4th Floor,  Chandra  Co-op. Housing Society  Ltd.  Dawood  Baug, Andheri, Bombay-58, which was also searched on 21.10.88  but nothing  incriminating was found in the flat. Telephone  No. 6284105  was found installed there, which is  subscribed  by the detenu. The detenu also disclosed that he was having two shops (i) M/s Ali Decorators, G-I, Parag Niketan, 10th Road, Juhu, Bombay400 049 (ii) M/s Ali Decorators, Shop No. 9,  A- Wing,  Twin  Tower,  Lokhandwala  Complex,  Andheri  (West), Bombay-58  both of which were searched on 21.10.88 and  some documents  were  seized from the former  shop.  Nothing  was seized from the 2nd shop. 275     The statements of the detenu were recorded on  21.10.88, 22.10.88 and 7.11.88 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985. With regard to the statement given by the detenu on 21.10.88 it was mentioned as under in the grounds of detention. "In  your statement of 21.10.88 you inter-alia, stated  that you have a business of Video Libraries and Marriage  decora- tions;  that  you own the property  and  vehicles  mentioned above;  that you were initiated into drug  trafficking  some time  in 1984 by one Anwar, owner of Anwar Star Petrol  Pump Crawford Market, that in the beginning you were employed  as a delivery boy on a compensation of Rs.30 per day; that  you used  to deliver Heroin to customers on the road side;  that after sometime you started procuring Heroin from Pathans and repacking  it in small packets and you used to store  it  in public toilets with the help of Municipal Sweepers and  sell the  same:  that you used to buy heroin for  Rs.  16,000  to 20,000  and sell it for RS. 18,000 to 25,000 per  K.g.  that you were making a profit of Rs.4,000 to 5,000 that your main selling  points  were Colaba and Nariman Point;  that  there were  a number of brokers hovering around the  above  places who contact the customers; that you gave samples to  brokers who  showed  them  to the customers; that if  a  sample  was approved  and the price agreeable, then you used to ask  the purchaser  to meet you at some point in Juhu or  Andheri  or some  other  places, that you used to pick up  the  required quantity  of Heroin and deliver it to the customer and  col- lect  the money; that initially you were storing the  Heroin in  your flat and later on you used to store it in the  said room  No.  G/2, Purab Aur Paschim Apartments,  Gilbert  Hill Road,  Andheri (W), Bombay-58. As regards the source of  the Heroin  and Mandrax tablets you stated that you acquired  29 kgs.  of white Hereoin in instalment from one Mangal  Pandey of Banaras and the remaining white hereoin from one Raichand Chandmal  Shah, that 25 kgs. of Brown Heroin  was  purchased from  one  Asgar of Phulgalli, Bhendi Bazar  who  has  since died;  that you did not know the address of  Mangal  Pandey, that you purchased the Heroin on credit; that over the  last about 31/2 years you must have sold 300 kgs. of Heroin  that all  the movable and immovable property acquired by you  has been purchased from the profits from drug trafficking;  that your income from legal business 276 of  Video  library  and decoration  is  about  Rs.2,000  per month."     The  statement recorded on 22.10.88 as mentioned in  the grounds of detention is reproduced as under: "In your next statement of 22.10.88 you stated that  because you had to make 3-4 trips to your native place and that  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

the  reason  why such a large quantity of heroin  was  lying with  you;  that you were keeping one car  and  two  wheeler because  you required them for transporting/selling of  Man- drax  tablets and it is advisable to use different  vehicles in  this business; you further stated that Abdul Sattar  and your  brother  Syed  Asghar Ali were not  involved  in  this business and that they did not know that you are dealing  in heroin;  they  were  present in the room  where  heroin  was seized  on 21.10.88; because you had sent them to  supervise masonry work"     The  detaining  authority  further  made  the  following observations in the grounds of detention: "You  were  arrested  on 22.10.88 and  produced  before  the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Holiday Court)  on 23.10.88  who remanded you to Judicial Custody till  4.11.88 which was extended from time to time. You also filed  appli- cation for bail on 21.11.88 which was rejected by the  AddI. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Bombay.     It may be further important. to note that in the grounds of  detention  the detaining authority had  noted  that  the other  detenus Shri Raichand Shah and Sh.  Jailal  Keshavlal Vora were already released on bail on 18.11.88 on furnishing a  bail  for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 each in  cash.  After taking  note  of all the above circumstances  the  detaining authority made the following observations in respect of  the detenu having a likelihood of being released on bail: "It  is clear that there is a ring of traffickers in  heroin and Mandrax tablets in Bombay and you are a part of the ring and  you have been habitually engaging yourself  in  posses- sion, sale, purchase, transportation and storage of narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substances. 1 am aware that you 277 are still in judicial custody but I am also aware that under the normal law of the land you may be granted bail and be in a position to continue to pursue your nefarious activities.          I,  therefore, consider it necessary to invoke  the law of preventive detention and detain you under the PIINDPS Act, 1988 to prevent you from indulging in such  prejudicial activities in future."     Thus the material placed before the detaining  authority and the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention  clearly go to show that the detaining authority was fully aware that the  bail application filed by the detenu had been  rejected by  the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 8th  Court, Bombay-  The detaining authority was also conscious  of  the fact  that the two other detenus who were arrested  and  de- tained  in the same raid had already been released on  bail. The antecedents of the detenu which were clear from his  own statement  went to show that he was initiated in drug  traf- ficking in 1984 and employed as a delivery boy on Rs.30  per day  Within  a short span of four years the  detenu  himself started  buying and selling Narcotic Drugs and amassed  huge movable  and immovable properties in Bombay. In the  present raid itself heroin and Mandrax tablets worth Rs. 1, 13,42000 were seized from the ownership and possession of the detenu. Not only that the detenu was using three vehicles for trans- portation  of these Narcotic drugs. The detaining  authority after  taking into consideration the above materials  placed before him, arrived to the conclusion that the detenu  being in judicial custody may under the normal law of the land  be granted bail and be in a position to continue to pursue  his nefarious  activities.  The  detaining  authority  in  these circumstances  considered it necessary to invoke the law  of preventive  detention  under the Act to prevent  the  detenu from  indulging in his prejudicial activities in future.  In

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

these  circumstances  it cannot be said that  the  order  of detention was illegal on the ground that it was passed while the detenu was already in custody      It was next contended on behalf of the petitioner  that the detention orders of Rai Chand Chandmal Shah and Jai  lal Keshavlal  Vora  had already been struck down  by  the  High Court  on the ground that the medical report in  respect  of the  injury  sustained  by Rai Chand Shah was  placed  in  a truncated  form before the detaining authority. It was  thus argued  that the detention order of the present detenu  also suffers  from the same vice and as such his order of  deten- tion should also be set aside. 278     We see no force in this’ contention. We have perused the orders  of the High Court quashing the detention  orders  of Rai Chand Shah and Jai Lal Vora. A perusal of the orders  of the High Court shows that the basis for the detention orders of  Rai Chand Shah and Jai Lal Vora were their  confessional statements.  It was alleged before the High Court  that  Rai Chand Shah was given a severe beating on account of which he sustained  serious injuries and as such his alleged  confes- sional  statement  should  not have been made  a  ground  of detention.  The High Court in this regard observed that  the confessional  statement of Rai Chand Shah being  product  of threats and injuries sustained by him and his medical report having  been placed in truncated form before  the  detaining authority,  the certificate showing injuries in  detail  not having  been  placed before the detaining authority  by  the sponsoring  authority, the detention became invalid. Now  so far  as Jai Lal Keshav Lal Vora is concerned the High  Court took  the view that the statements of Rai Chand Shah  formed integral  and vital part of the grounds of detention of  Jai Lal Vora and if such important and vital part of the materi- al  is  obliterated and excluded it is not possible  to  say that  the remaining material is ample and more  than  suffi- cient  to  justify  the detention of Jai Lal  K.  Vora.  The detention  order of Jai Lal K. Vora was also declared  ille- gal.  Now so far as the case of the present detenu Syed  Ali Raza  Shafiq Mohd. is concerned as already  mentioned  above his  detention  is based on entirely distinct  and  separate materials  including  his own confessional  statements.  The basis  of the grounds of detention of the present detenu  is not  rounded  on  the truncated form of  medical  report  of injuries sustained by Rai Chand Shah. At the most it can  be considered  as  a  supplementary kind of  material  for  the detention  order  of the present detenu.  Thus  the  present detenu  cannot  take advantage of any orders passed  by  the High Court declaring the detention orders of Rai Chand  Shah and Jai Lal K. Vora as illegal.     It  was next contended on behalf of the petitioner  that though a declaration was issued under Sec. 10(1) of the  Act on 20th January, 1989 but the same was served on the  detenu on  10.2.89  after an unexplained delay of 21 days.  It  was vehemently contended on behalf of the detenu that the detenu ought  to have been served with the declaration as  soon  as may  be after the issue of such declaration, but  ordinarily not  later  than 5 days and in case it was not  done  within five days then reasons ought to have been recorded in  writ- ing  for explaining the delay and that also could  not  have been later than 15 days in any case. Learned Counsel in this regard  submitted  that under clause (5) of Art. 22  of  the Constitution  a right is guaranteed to the detenu to  afford an  earliest opportunity of making a representation  against the order of 279

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

detention.  It  was  contended that when the  liberty  of  a citizen is taken away he ought to be afforded an opportunity of making representation at the earliest and the  provisions contained  in  Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the Act  should  in terms  also apply in the case of communicating the  declara- tion issued under Sec. 10(1) of the Act.     We  see no force in the above contention. So far as  the provision of Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the Act is  concerned it  clearly provides that for the purposes of clause (5)  of Art.  22 of the Constitution, the communication to a  person detained in persuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the order has been made shah be made as soon as may be after  the  detention, but ordinarily not  later  than  five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded  in writing, not later than fifteen days, from  the date of detention. This provision thus relates to the commu- nication of the grounds of detention. In the case before  us the  grounds  of detention were admittedly  communicated  on 20th  December,  1988,  while the  detention  order  was  of 19.12.88- Thus there is full compliance of the above  provi- sion and the order of detention cannot be challenged on this ground. Now so far as the guarantee under Clause (5) of Art. 22  of the Constitution is concerned there can be no  manner of  doubt that the person detained under any law of  preven- tive detention ought to be communicated the grounds on which the  order  has been made so as to afford him  the  earliest opportunity  of making a representation against  the  order. The detenu was served with the grounds of detention on  20th December, 1988 and the detenu had full and ample opportunity to  make a representation against the detention order.  Sub- Sec. (1) of Sec. 10 of the Act reads as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any  person (including  a  foreigner)  in respect of whom  an  order  of detention is made under this Act at any time before the 31st day  of  July, 1990, may be detained without  obtaining,  in accordance  with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of  clause (4) of Art. 22 of the Constitution, the opinion of an  Advi- sory  Board  for a period longer than three months  but  not exceeding  six months from the date of his detention,  where the  order  of detention has been made against  such  person with  a  view  to preventing him from  engaging  in  illicit traffic  in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,  and the Central Government or any officer of the Central Govern- ment, not below the rank of an Additional Secretary to  that Government, specially empowered for the 280 purposes  of  this  section by  that  Government,  specially empowered  for the purposes of this section by that  Govern- ment, is satisfied that such person engages or is likely  to engage in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances  into, out of, through or within any area  highly vulnerable  to such illicit traffic and makes a  declaration to  that effect within five weeks of the detention  of  such person."     In the counter affidavit filed before this Court it  has been stated in para (L) as under: "Regarding  the declaration, it may be stated that the  same was  dispatched by the Ministry of Finance on  20.1.1989  to the   Home  Secretary,  Government  of Maharashtra,  Bombay, Maharashtra Government forwarded it to NCB, Bombay which was received in the NCS office on 1.2.89 from the State  Govern- ment.  It was then sent for translation, 4th and 5th  Febru- ary, being holidays (being Saturday and Sunday) the declara- tion  was dispatched on 6.2.89. It was received by the  Jail authorities on 10.2.1989 and served on the detenu same day."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Thus  the declaration had been made in this case on  20.1.89 by  the Ministry of Finance within the statutory  period  of five weeks of the detention and the period taken in  serving the  same  on the detenu on 10.2.89  has  been  sufficiently explained.  The detenu was lodged in Central  Prison  Bombay and  the Advisory Board had fixed a date on 23.2.89  and  as such  the  detenu  had ample opportunity  to  challenge  the declaration.  The  High  Court has also gone  in  detail  in dealing  with this aspect of the matter, and we  agree  with the  finding  recorded by the High Court. The  principle  of five days and fifteen days as provided in Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 relating to communication of grounds of  detention cannot  be  applied in respect of declaration  issued  under Sec.  10(1)  of the Act. In the facts and  circumstances  of this  case  we are fully satisfied that the detenu  has  not been  denied any opportunity of making any effective  repre- sentation against the declaration issued under Sec. 10(1) of the Act.     The last submission made on behalf of the detenu is that the detenu had submitted a representation on 31.1.89 jointly addressed  to the Government of Maharashtra, the  Government of  India and the Advisory Board. The State  Government  re- jected the representation 281 by its reply dated 21.2.89 and the Central Government by its reply dated 3.3.89. It was thus contended that there was  an inordinate  and  unexplained delay in considering  the  said representations  and this is violative of the right  of  the detenu conferred under Clause (5) of Art. 22 of the  Consti- tution-  The  point should not detain us any  longer  as  we fully agree with the finding of the High Court, recorded  in this regard. The High Court has given adequate and  detailed reasons in holding that the delay has been explained by  the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Thus we find  no force in this ground of the detenu that his  representations were disposed of after an inordinate and unexplained delay.    As a result of the above discussion, we find no force  in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.                                         Petition dismissed. R.S.S. 282