Legally Bharat

Jharkhand High Court

Charitra Kumar Dangi @ Chalitar Dangi @ … vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 August, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       W.P.(Criminal) No.557 of 2024
                                      ------
        Charitra Kumar Dangi @ Chalitar Dangi @ Charitra Dangi,
        aged about 33 years, son of Suraj Dangi, resident of Village &
        P.O. & P.S. Gidhour, District Chatra (Jharkhand).
                                                       ... ... Petitioner
                                      Versus
        1. The State of Jharkhand.
        2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons &
             Disaster Management, having its office at Project
             Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
             (Jharkhand)
        3. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand.
        4. The Superintendent of Police, Chatra.
        5. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra.
        6. The Circle Officer, Gidhour, District Chatra.
        7. The Officer-In-Charge, Gidhour Police Station, Gidhour,
             Chatra.
                                                    ... ... Respondents
                                   ------
           PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                       : SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
                                           ------
        For the Petitioner   : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey,
                                Advocate.
        For the State        : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG.
                                  ------

                                  ORDER

CAV on 19.08.2024 Pronounced on : 22/08/2024

Per Ananda Sen, J.:

By way of this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari, the

petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order

(Number-18/PITNDPS-07/2024-2453) dated 19.04.2024

passed by respondent No.2, wherein by exercising powers

under Section 3(3) of The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988

(PITNDPS Act), the order of detention has been passed

1
against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner

argues that the detention order has been passed without

application of mind. It is his contention that the criminal

cases filed under the NDPS Act, wherein the petitioner was

tried ended in acquittal, that being so the entire allegation

against the petitioner that he is involved in dealing with

drugs and narcotic substances, is without any basis. So far as

the reference of some Station Diary Entries are concerned,

those admittedly did not culminate in any F.I.R. or

proceedings against the petitioner, thus, they cannot form a

basis of passing the detention order. On these grounds, he

challenges the impugned order.

3. Learned AAG Mr. Ashutosh Anand, representing

the respondent-State submitted that the order has been

passed under the provisions of Section 3 of The Prevention of

Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1988. The order is not cryptic and assigns reason as to

why the order of detention has been passed against the

petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, forwarded a

proposal for detention of the petitioner invoking the

provisions of the aforesaid Act to the Secretary, Department

of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Jharkhand, and

the grounds of detention has been mentioned therein.

As per the State, the petitioner is a professional

and well known brown sugar smuggler and due to the act of

this petitioner and others attached with him, the entire image

2
of the State has been tarnished. It is not only this petitioner

but also his family members including his brother are

involved in a drug racket. There are several criminal cases

pending against the petitioner and even after his release on

bail, the petitioner gets involved in dealing with narcotic and

psychotropic substances. Thus, it was necessary to pass a

detention order against the petitioner. The grounds for

detention was served upon the petitioner and after

consideration of all the facts, a reasoned order has been

passed which should not be interfered with.

4. We have heard the learned counsel representing

the petitioner and learned AAG representing the State.

5. The impugned order has been passed against the

petitioner detaining him by invoking Section 3 of The

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as „PITNDPS

Act‟). The impugned order has been placed on record as

Annexure-1 to this Criminal Writ Petition.

6. The PITNDPS Act, was promulgated to provide for

detention to prevent illicit traffic of narcotic drug and

psychotropic substances and for the matters connected

thereto with a view to prevent any person from engaging any

illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic

substances. A detention order can be passed in terms of

Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act. In terms of Section 3, the

power is vested upon the Central Government or the State

Government or any Officer of the Central Government not

3
below the rank of Joint Secretary to that Government

specially empowered for that purpose or any officer of the

State Government not below the rank of Secretary of that

Government specially empowered for the purpose to pass an

order of detention. As per Section 3, the said officer while

passing the order of detention must be satisfied that the

person against whom the detention order is being passed is

engaged in illicit traffic in narcotic drug and psychotropic

substance.

7. It is necessary to quote Section 3(1) of the

PITNDPS Act for better appreciation which reads as here

under:-

“3. Power to make orders detaining certain
persons.– The Central Government or a State
Government, or any officer of the Central Government,
not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that
Government, specially empowered for the purposes of
this section by that Government, or any officer of a
State Government not below the rank of a Secretary to
that Government, specially empowered for the purposes
of this section by that Government, may, if satisfied,
with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that,
with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit
traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it
is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such
person be detained.

(2) When any order of detention is made by a State
Government or by an officer empowered by a State
Government, the State Government shall, within ten
days, forward to the Central Government a report in
respect of the order.

(3) For the purposes of Cl. (5) of Art. 22 of the
Constitution, the communication to a person detained in
pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which
the order has been made shall 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.”

4

8. The word “illicit traffic” is defined under Section 2

(e) of the PITNDPS Act. It is necessary to quote Section 2 (e)

of the PITNDPS Act, which is as here under:-

“2. Definitions.– In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,–

(a) …………

(b) ………….

     (c)     .............
     (d) .............

(e) “illicit traffic” , in relation to narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances, means–

(i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion or
coca plant ;

(ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant;

(iii) engaging in the production, manufacture,
possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing,
concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State,
export inter-State, import in India, export from India or
transhipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances;

(iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances other than those provided in
sub-clauses (i) to (iii); or

(v) handling or letting any premises for the carrying on
of any of the activities referred to in sub- clauses (i) to

(iv), other than those permitted under the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of
1985), or any rule or order made, or any condition of
any licence, term or authorisation issued, thereunder
and includes,–

(1) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the
aforementioned activities ;

(2) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance of or in
support of doing any of the aforementioned activities;
and
(3) harbouring persons engaged in any of the
aforementioned activities;”

9. As per Section 3(2), once a detention order is

made by the State Government or by an officer empowered

by the State Government, the State Government is mandated

to forward a report to the Central Government within ten

days with respect to the said order. As per Section 3(3)

5
communication to the detained person in respect of the

detention order and the grounds of detention shall be made

available to the detained person ordinarily within five days

and in exceptional cases not later than fifteen days from the

date of detention. If under exceptional circumstances, the

order along with the reasons therewith is communicated after

five days and within fifteen days, the reasons for the delay

should also be recorded in writing. Aforesaid is the mandate

of Section 3(3) of the Act.

10. Section 6 provides that the ground of detention is

severable. It provides that if a person is detained on two or

more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to

have been made separately on each of such grounds and

such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative

merely because one or some of the grounds are vague, non-

existent, non-relevant, not connected with such person or

invalid for any other reason. As per the aforesaid provision, it

will be deemed that if one of the ground falls within the

aforesaid categories, then it will be deemed that the order of

detention is passed in reference to the remaining grounds. It

is necessary to quote Section 6 (a) and (b) :-

“6. Grounds of detention severable.– Where a
person has been detained in pursuance of an order of
detention under sub-section (1) of Sec. 3 which has been
made on two or more grounds, such order of detention
shall be deemed to have been made separately on each
grounds and accordingly–

(a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or
inoperative merely because one or some of the
grounds is or are–

(i) vague,

(ii) non-existent,

(iii) not relevant,
6

(iv) not connected or not proximately connected
with such persons, or

(v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, and it
is not therefore possible to hold that the
Government or officer making such order would
have been satisfied provided in sub-section (1) of
Sec. 3 with reference to the remaining ground or
grounds and made the order of detention;

(b) the Government or officer making the order of
detention shall be deemed to have made the order of
detention under the said sub-section (1) after being
satisfied as provided in that sub- section with
reference to the remaining ground or grounds.”

11. Section 7 of the PITNDPS Act provides that

detention order will not be invalid or inoperative merely

because the person to be detained is outside the limits of the

territorial jurisdiction of the Government or the Officer

making the order or the place of detention of such person is

outside the said limits. It is necessary to quote Section 7 of

the PITNDPS Act, which reads hereunder:-

“7. Detention orders not to be invalid or
inoperative on certain grounds.– No detention
order shall be invalid or inoperative merely by reason–

(a) that the person to be detained thereunder is
outside the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of
the Government or the officer making the order
of detention; or

(b) that the place of detention of such person is
outside the limits.”

12. In the instant case, I find that the order of

detention has been passed by the Principal Secretary of the

Government of Jharkhand. As per Section 3 of the said Act,

the said officer has power to pass the aforesaid detention

order. Further none questioned the power of the respondent

No.2. Thus, the impugned order is not without jurisdiction.

13. When I go through the order of detention, I find

7
that the reasons for detention has been mentioned therein. It

has been mentioned that the petitioner is a professional and

renowned dealer in brown sugar. Because of his act, the

image of the State of Jharkhand is gaining bad reputation.

His brother is also involved in the activities of dealing in

narcotics. Because of this act, police of several States have

conducted raids in his house. There are several cases and

Station Diaries lodged against this petitioner and he has been

sent to jail on several occasions but he has not amended his

behaviour and nature. Even after obtaining bail, he is

involved in dealing with drugs and narcotic substance. It has

further been mentioned that against the petitioner, following

F.I.R.s and Station Diary Entries have been lodged :-

FIRs :-

i. “Gidhour P.S. Case No.57 of 2016 under Sections
147/ 148/ 149/ 323/ 342/ 353/ 332/ 427/ 504/ 152
IPC.

ii. Rajpur P.S. Case No.5 of 2018, under Sections
8(B)/15/18/18(c)/22/32/46 of the NDPS Act and
Section 33 of Forest Act, 1927
iii. Rajpur P.S. Case No.3 of 2018 under Sections
8/(B)/15/18/18(C)/22/34/46 of the NDPS Act
iv. Khunti P.S. Case No.107 of 2017, under Sections
414/34 IPC and Section 17(ii) of the NDPS Act

Station Diary Entries :-

         i.   Gidhour Station Diary No.8 of 2023
       ii.    Gidhour Station Diary No.17 of 2023,
      iii.    Gidhour Station Diary No.23 of 2023,
      iv.     Gidhour Station Diary No.14 of 2023
       v.     Gidhour Station Diary No.21 of 2024."



Thus, it has been concluded by the Authority that

the petitioner does not have any regard for law and as he is

indulging in illegal activities in dealing with narcotic drugs

8
and psychotropic substances which has a negative impact on

humanity and on the nation and there is a law and order

problem, it is necessary to detain him.

14. From the aforesaid order of detention, it is clear

that the detention is only on one ground i.e. the petitioner is

engaged in dealing with narcotic, drugs and psychotropic

substances and is habitual in such dealings. The basis of

coming to the said conclusion is the criminal cases mentioned

above and the Station Diary Entries. Thus, the satisfaction of

the authority passing the detention order that the petitioner

is a habitual dealer in drugs is based on the criminal cases

against him.

15. Since the ground of detention is only one, there

cannot be any application of Section 6 of the PITNDPS Act.

16. A preventive detention amounts to loss of liberty

without there being any trial. This detention is preventive and

not punitive. There should be sufficient materials before the

detaining authority to conclude that a person needs to be

detained. The satisfaction as envisaged in Section 3 is

paramount and there should be a strong basis of such

satisfaction. The satisfaction cannot be merely on assumption

and presumptions. The same should be based on some

sufficient materials. The satisfaction should be raised on

materials which are of rationally probative value and the

entirety of the material placed before the Authority should be

considered.

17. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of

9
Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana & Ors. reported

in (2023) 9 SCC 587, has culled out the principles and the

test of legality which the Courts should embark upon while

dealing with prevention detention order. It is necessary to

quote para-27 & 28 which are as hereunder:-

“27. Be that as it may, culling out the principles of law
flowing from all the relevant decisions in the field, our
understanding of the law for deciding the legality of an
order of preventive detention is that even without
appropriate pleadings to assail such an order, if
circumstances appear therefrom raising a doubt of the
detaining authority misconceiving his own powers, the
Court ought not to shut its eyes; even not venturing to
make any attempt to investigate the sufficiency of the
materials, an enquiry can be made by the Court into
the authority’s notions of his power. Without being
remotely concerned about the sufficiency or otherwise
of the materials on which detention has been ordered,
the Court would be justified to draw a conclusion, on
proof from the order itself, that the detaining authority
failed to realise the extent of his own powers. This is
quite apart from questioning the action for want of
sufficient materials that were before the detaining
authority. The authority for the detention is the order of
detention itself, which the detenu or the Court can
read. Such a reading of the order would disclose the
manner in which the activity of the detenu was viewed
by the detaining authority to be prejudicial to
maintenance of public order and what exactly he
intended should not be permitted to happen. Any order
of a detaining authority evincing that the same runs
beyond his powers, as are actually conferred, would not
amount to a valid order made under the governing
preventive detention law and be vulnerable on a
challenge being laid. ”

“28. In the circumstances of a given case, a
constitutional court when called upon to test the
legality of orders of preventive detention would be
entitled to examine whether:

28.1. The order is based on the requisite satisfaction,
albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the
absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a
matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the
exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine
qua non for the exercise of the power not being
satisfied;

28.2. In reaching such requisite satisfaction, the
detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant
circumstances and the same is not based on material
extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute;

10

28.3. Power has been exercised for achieving the
purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised
for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute,
and is therefore ultra vires;

28.4. The detaining authority has acted independently
or under the dictation of another body;
28.5. The detaining authority, by reason of self-

created rules of policy or in any other manner not
authorised by the governing statute, has disabled itself
from applying its mind to the facts of each individual
case;

28.6. The satisfaction of the detaining authority rests
on materials which are of rationally probative value,
and the detaining authority has given due regard to the
matters as per the statutory mandate;

28.7. The satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in
mind existence of a live and proximate link between
the past conduct of a person and the imperative need
to detain him or is based on material which is stale;
28.8. The ground(s) for reaching the requisite
satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some
degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as
connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-
matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction
is to be reached;

28.9. The grounds on which the order of preventive
detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent
and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the
detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him
the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and
28.10. The timelines, as provided under the law, have
been strictly adhered to.”

18. Considering the aforesaid provisions of law, when

I go through the impugned order of detention, as held earlier,

I find that there is only one ground for detention which is

mentioned above. As mentioned, the ground is backed up by

a fact which is the criminal case and the Station Diaries

lodged against him.

19. So far as the Station Diary Entry is concerned,

from the Counter Affidavit there is nothing to suggest that

those Station Diary Entries have culminated in any criminal

proceedings. Mere Station Diary Entries making some

11
allegations and casting aspersions against any person without

the same being converted into any criminal proceedings

under the provisions of the Penal Law, is not a sufficient

ground to reach at a satisfaction that the person needs to be

detained. Further so far as the criminal cases are concerned,

in the impugned order, references have been made, but

surprisingly the said information about the criminal case is

not in its entirety. There are references of four criminal cases

against this petitioner which have been mentioned in para-14

above. Out of those four cases, in three criminal case namely

Rajpur P.S. Case No.5 of 2018, Rajpur P.S. Case No.3 of

2018, Khunti P.S. Case No.107 of 2017, this petitioner has

been acquitted. The judgments of acquittal has been brought

on record and has been annexed along with the writ petition.

The fact of this acquittal has not been denied by learned AAG

on behalf of the State.

20. So far as Gidhour P.S. Case No.57 of 2016 is

concerned, I find that the same is not under the NDPS Act.

The aforesaid P.S. Case is under the provisions of the Indian

Penal Code. In the aforesaid case, this petitioner along with

others were found guilty of offence under Sections 147, 148,

332, 342, 427 and 504 IPC and was sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court

being the Sessions Judge, Chatra in Criminal Appeal No.16 of

2023 modified the judgment and convicted the petitioner

under Section 323, 353 and 149 of the IPC and released him

after due admonition as per Section 3 of Probation of

12
Offenders Act.

21. Thus, the impugned order of detention was only

based on half of the information supplied to the Authority

about the pending cases. The material which was before the

Detaining Authority was incomplete. Based on any incomplete

information, no detention order, taking away liberty of a

person, can be passed.

Satisfaction based on irrelevant documents or

incomplete document or satisfaction only on the basis of filing

of charge sheet ignoring acquittal of the detenu of the said

charges is not a proper satisfaction in the eye of law to take

away the liberty of a person by passing a detention order.

22. Further, once the State fails to achieve conviction

under the Penal Laws after a proper and full-fledged trial, by

taking a circuitous method, relying on the same cases in

which the petitioner stands acquitted, cannot pass an order

of detention against the same person who has already been

acquitted. When the petitioner has been acquitted in all the

cases, it cannot be said that he is a habitual offender. It was

the duty of the State to ensure conviction of the petitioner in

those trials, if at all he was involved in the offences but when

the State failed to obtain conviction of the petitioner in the

criminal cases only thereafter has come up with the

impugned detention order.

23. It is true that the detention order has to be based

on some satisfaction. It is also true that the satisfaction is

subjective and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article

13
226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as an Appellate

Court evaluating the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority

nor can substitute the same, but this Court can very well look

into the sufficiency of the material which was placed before

the Authority to arrive at such satisfaction. On the basis of

some half-baked, incomplete information, if a satisfaction is

arrived at, the same cannot be said to be a logical

satisfaction based on sufficient complete materials. There has

to be complete material to arrive at a satisfaction before

issuing the order of detention. As per para-28 of the

judgment passed in the case of Ameena Begum (supra),

the satisfaction must rest on materials which are of rationally

probative value and the authority must give due regard to

the matters as per the statutory mandate. When the material

which is before the Authority is incomplete, it cannot be said

that the satisfaction is based on complete materials. Before

the Authority, the materials must be complete.

24. The consideration that the petitioner is a habitual

offender is also based on the incomplete information i.e.

Station Diary Entries which did not culminate in any criminal

proceeding. The criminal case also ended in acquittal, thus,

the aforesaid information cannot be the basis to conclude

that the petitioner is a habitual offender.

25. Thus, from what has been held above, I am of the

opinion that the satisfaction as recorded by the Detaining

Authority in this case cannot be said to be a proper

satisfaction which is based on complete information. The

14
impugned order does not even whisper about acquittal of this

petitioner in the criminal case in which the petitioner was an

accused under the provisions of NDPS Act, which forms the

sole basis of passing the impugned order.

26. Thus, I hold that the order of detention has been

passed based on materials which are incomplete and the

basis of satisfaction being incomplete, vitiates the entire

process. Further I hold that since there is only one ground of

detention, there is no applicability of Section 6 of The

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1988 and the entire order gets vitiated, thus,

cannot be sustained.

27. In view of the above findings arrived at, the

impugned detention order (Number-18/PITNDPS-07/2024-

2453) dated 19.04.2024, passed by respondent No.2, is

hereby quashed and set aside.

28. Accordingly, the instant criminal Writ Petition is

allowed.

29. If the petitioner in the meantime is kept under

detention, he be released forthwith.

30. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J : I agree.

(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Dated:- 22/08/2024
AFR / Prashant

15

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *