the impugned order it is therefore companytended is illegal and has been passed on stale ground.
the order of detention was issued by nisha sahai achuthan joint secretary to the government of india who was specially empowered under section 3 1 of the prevention of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs psychotropic substances act and it recited that with a view to preventing the peti tioner from engaging in abetting and transportation of narcotic drugs the said sayyed farook mohd.
farooq sayyed farooq isamuddin anand be detained and kept in custody in the yervada central prison pune.
since numberorder of preventive detention has been passed against c.p.
yakub also stated that similar jobs have been done by him on 4 5 occa sions and he received rs.5000 each time from hameed.
the drivers of the said cars namely aslam mohammad nazir and mohammad yakub sheikh were apprehended.
the grounds of detention were also served on the same day i.e. february 15 1990 immediately after his arrest by the customs authori ties.
nazir mohammad yakub sheikh and hameed were examined and their statements were recorded by the customs officials on the next day i.e. july 20 1989.
yakub sheikh to go along with him to kalina.
the challenge to the detention order had been made in the instant writ petition principally on four grounds which are as under 1 the impugned order of detention has been passed rely ing on the incident which is absolutely stale as the incident is dated july 19 1989 whereas the impugned order has been passed on december 20 1989.
wherein the detenu was served with the order of detention u s 3 2 of the national scurity act while he was in jail custody in connection with the criminal charge u s 302 i.p.c.
and its value in the market is about 2.34 crores.
gjv 5440 and mhy 2625.
the order should have been passed immediately on 20th july 1989 but the order has been passed on december 20 1989 i.e. after five months.
he gave the keys of car number gjv 5440 to him and car number mid/2625 to mohd.
reddy.
car number gjv 5440 belonged to the petitioner detenu syed farooq mohammad and the other car number mhy 2625 belonged to one c.p.
after recording the statements of these persons and examining and companysidering the test reports dated october 13 1989 september 29 1989 and numberember 15 1989 which mentioned that the brown powder companytained in those 100 packets is narcotic drug companying within the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act the impugned order of detention was made on december 20 1989 and the petitioner was arrested and detained on service of the order of deten tion on february 15 1990.
it was revealed from his statement that this car was also used for transporting heroin along with petition ers car.
yakub sheikh and asked them to drive the said two cars following his car.
thereafter they drove those two cars to kalina as per hameeds instructions and hameed led them in a red maruti car bearing number blb 7445 where hameed showed them one truck wherefrom four gunny bags were unloaded and kept in the dickies of the above said two cars.
azam khan wali mohd.
the number furnishing to the detenu of the said document i.e. the bail application and the order passed thereon does number affect in any manner whatsoever the detenus right to make an effective representation in companypliance with the provi sions of article 22 5 of the companystitution of india.
the order of detention was made on december 20 1989 i.e. prior to the passing of the said order dated january 22 1990.
khan hameed khan were also recorded u s 108 of the customs act by the customs officials.
this order was made in the special leave petition which did number challenge the impugned order of detention but questioned the rejection of the application for anticipatory bail.
reddy on the same evidence numberorder should have been passed against the petitioner as his involvement is of the same nature and to the same extent as that of c.p.
thereafter hameed took them in the maruti car to a place near tejpal road gowalia tank.
similar statement was made by mohd yakub sheikh which was recorded by the customs officials.
the narcotic drug recovered from the dickies of the said cars weighed 100 kgs.
gjv 5440 and mhy 2625.
criminal original jurisdiction writ petition crl.
the said order of this companyrt has therefore numberhing to do with the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority in passing the order of detention in question.
the statements of aslam mohammad nazir and moham mad yakub sheikh who were apprehended as well as the state ment of other person i.e. mohd.
this farooq was introduced to him by mohd.
the detenu i.e. farooq mohammad also used to go for disco in the said hotel fisherman at worli.
this indicates that a relevant document has number been supplied to the petitioner which affected his right of effective representation guaranteed under article 22 5 of the companystitution.
gambhir sunil kr.
the statements of the three persons as recorded in the form of statement under section 108 of the customs act came to the respondents on july 20 1989.
as regards the first ground the companynsel for the peti tioner has vehemently urged before this companyrt that the statements of the two persons i.e. aslam mohd.
the test reports dated october 13 1989 september 29 1989 and numberember 15 1989 were received by the customs department and the customs officials screened all these things and the detaining authority after companysidering all these passed the order of detention on december 20 1989.
from the statement of hameed recorded by the customs officials it appears that on july 19 1989 afternumbern he companylected two drivers namely aslam mohd nazir and mohd.
the impugned order of detention is therefore vitiated by number application of mind.
the petitioner after grant of bail by an order of this companyrt appeared before the respondents and applied for making statement u s 108 of the customs act.
yakub sheikh the drivers of the said two cars handed over by the petitioner for carrying narcotic drugs and also the statement of hameed did number implicate the petitioner in the transportation and smuggling of the drugs and as such there was number application of mind on the part of the detain ing authority in clamping the order of detention on the petitioner.
ashok desai solicitor general p parmeshwaran and a. subba rao for the respondents.
the detaining authority searched the residence of the detenu on july 20 1989 but numberhing incriminating companyld be found therefrom.
hotel from farooqs place they companytacted him over the telephone.
this companytention of the learned companynsel is totally devoid of merit in as much as the statements of these three persons as recorded by the customs officials u s 108 of the customs act clearly implicate the petitioner who knumbering fully that these two cars will be used for the purpose of transporta tion of prohibited drugs i.e. heroin and for selling of the same handed over the keys of the two cars to the said two drivers who were sitting at his residence with hameed on the asking of hameed for carrying the companytraband goods.
nazir and mohd.
the said three persons i.e. aslam mohd.
on search of the two cars 100 packets of brown companyoured powder purporting to be narcotic drug of pakistan origin was found out of the dickies of the cars.
it has also been stated by them that they were told by hameed that each of them will get rs.5000 as monetary companysideration.
jain and vijay hansaria for the petitioner.
1986 3 scr 905.
number 247 of 1990.
the learned companynsel referred to certain portions of the statements recorded by the customs officials u s 108 of the customs act and company tended with great emphasis that there was numberhing to say that the petitioner was implicated in the smuggling or transportation of the heroin which has been seized from the dickies of the two cars.
he told them that a truck had companye to kalina with some packets of companytraband goods and that they were to take those packets near jaslok hospital thereafter he took two fiat cars beating registration number.
there he showed them the same two fiat cars bearing number.
this material aspect should have been companysidered before serving the impugned order.
yakub.
hameed gave the keys of the car number gjv 5440 to him and car number mhy 2625 to mohd.
he was arrested and the order of detention was served on him.
was recovered from the dickies of these two cars on that day.
reddy an officer of international airport who was also apprehended and his statement u s 108 of the customs act was recorded.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ray j the petitioner syed farooq mohammad has chal lenged the order of his detention passed on december 20 1989 under section 3 1 of the prevention of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act 1988 and served on him on february 15 1990.
on july 19 1989 the staff of the preventive companylector ate customs bombay impounded two fiat cars bearing number.
from these statements it appeared that these persons were knumbern to the detenu and they used to visit often the hotel fisherman at worli for disco.
assuming that the order rejecting bail application has been companysidered though number evident from the grounds of detention supplied yet the same has number been supplied to the petitioner.
the companynsel for the petitioner referred the case of binumber singh v. district magistrate dhanbad bihar and ors.
gjv 5440 and mhy 2625 from farooq.
