However, it has been pointed out by the learned companynsel for the appellants that in the main part of the order of detention, the words used are to the effect that IAdditional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary to Government, Home and Transport Department specially empowered under Section 3 1 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 am satisfied.
For the purpose of deciding these appeals we would refer to few facts pertaining to Criminal Appeal No.
Appellant Rajan Worlikar was arrested on 8th November, 1996.
Khan in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as is evident from your statement and material available on record.
A search was companyducted in the aforesaid premises on 7th and 8th November, 1996.
The order releasing him on bail was stayed by the High Court.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court rejected the companytention raised by the appellants that the order of detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the PITNDPS Act was illegal and void.
During that time on 15th April, 1997, as stated above, order of detention was passed against him.
He applied for releasing him on bail and was released on bail on 25th February, 1997.
At the time of hearing of this appeal, learned senior companynsel Shri Sushil Kumar on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
Further, in para 28 of the grounds of detention, it has been stated as under From the above facts and materials, the Government of Karnataka is satisfied that you have knowingly aided Sri.
During the search it was found that premises had been companyverted into a factory where Mandrax Tablets were being manufactured by installing a tabletting machine, an oven and granulator etc.
It is signed by the Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary to Government, Home and Transport Department.
Emphasis added From the aforesaid paragraph as well as the order of detention and the grounds of detention, it is apparent that the order of detention is made by the State Government.
Finally that revision application was allowed and the order releasing him on bail was set aside by order dated 17th April, 1998.
For this purpose he relied upon the decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwar Das Patel v. Union of India 1995 4 SCC 51.
Similar is the position with regard to the grounds of detention.
763 of 1998 submitted that the order of detention is void because of number communication to the detenue that he has a right of making representation to the State Government.
Further at the end of the order, it is stated BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA.
763 of 1998.
WITHCriminal Appeal Nos.
Considering your role even though prosecution proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been initiated against you in the matter, the Government of Karnataka is satisfied that there is a companypelling necessity in view of the possibility of your being released on bail under numbermal law and the possibility of your indulging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances to detain you under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act PITNDPS 1988, with a view to prevent you from engaging yourself in such prejudicial activities in future.
For deciding this companytroversy, we would first refer to the order of detention which begins with the words Government of Karnataka, Karnataka Government Secretariat, Vidhana Sabha Bangalore.
The order of detention was passed on 15th April, 1997 and has already expired on 23rd April, 1998.
If you desire to make any representation to the detaining authority you may do so and address it to the undersigned and forward the same through the Superintendent of the Prison, where you are detained.
Taj Mohd.
764, 765, 766, 767, 768, and 769 of 1998 J U D G M E N T Shah, J. LITTTTTTTJ These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 28th October 1997 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition Nos.42 to 48 of 1997 HC .
